Does the President have to obey court rulings?

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Obama illegally appointed three National Labor Relations Board members. So what do the Obama folks do? Ignore the court ruling. One says, “The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.”

This is interesting. The court rules that the members are illegal. They have no right to decide cases. Yet they will continue to do it.

I understand Obama lovers will say this is okay, maybe good and necessary. But think about it. This is not an ambiguous case. It is as if you are stopped by a police officer for driving w/o a license. He says that you cannot drive, but you just tell him that you have important errands to run.

This is a serious problem. Decisions made by NLRB may not be binding. Sorry to keep on piling on metaphors, but it is like going before the justice of the peace to get married knowing that you might find out a few years later that your marriage is invalid.

This is no way to run a democracy with the rule of law.

Posted by Christine & John at January 29, 2013 6:11 PM
Comments
Comment #361034

I don’t understand C&J isn’t appointing people to positions during the Congressional recess something that has been done time and again for many years? Why is it all of a sudden illegal?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2013 6:50 PM
Comment #361035

It is quite well understood that obama doesn’t respect those parts of the constitution with which he disagrees and why should we wonder that he ignores court rulings he doesn’t like. He instructs the Justice Department on what laws should, and shouldn’t, be enforced.

Our government is out of control. Checks and balances no longer apply as intended by our founders. States have lost most of their rights and citizen rights are falling every day.

It is necessary for all this to occur if liberal/socialism is to have its way. They can not thrive under rule of law governed by constitutional principles. We now have appointed “regulators” who openly violate laws with impunity.

Our congresscritters are merely a farce. They appear daily on our news-sites and TV proclaiming that they are working for the “people”, and yet, the people suffer ever more under them. Money dictates their every legislative decision.

Our judges look to the politicians for direction rather than to our founding documents. Washington is truly awash with money and is a magnet for every scheming “special interest group”, crook and scoundrel in the nation.

We no longer have a representative democracy. We have a nation lead by those who offer the lemmings the most stolen loot in exchange for their vote. Many of our states and major cities are in financial shambles having followed Washington’s lead. Our primary education system functions only to plant subversive and socialistic ideas in the minds of our youth.

Those who have moral principles are derided and scorned and those not on the government dole are considered dupes and dopes. The entire nation seems to be in a “Get something for nothing mode” and we approve of criminals and cheats in high office.

The GDP is limping along at barely a 1% growth after spending trillions to stimulate it. Unemployment is stuck at very high numbers and our entitlement programs are deep in red ink.

Other than that…we’re doing just great as a nation. What a country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2013 6:56 PM
Comment #361036

C&J,
This topic is a great deal more complicated than you are suggesting. For a well balanced take on the issue, see the following:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/obama-defeat-on-nlrb-picks-a-rare-loss-on-recess-power.html

On the one hand, Congress has the constitutional power to give “advice and consent,” while on the other hand, the executive branch has had the power to make recess appointments since James Madison. In addition, no anticipated Congress would simply stop providing advice and consent in order to prevent entire agencies from functioning, such as the NLRB and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or by refusing to appoint a Director, as has occurred with ATF.

Three Republican appointees on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals made this ruling, but it contravenes the rulings of three other high level courts and centuries of precedents. The issue is far from decided, and it looks like there will be various appeals at high level courts for some time to come.

Royal Flush,
This must be a terrible time for you. The Dow Jones closed just under 14,000 today. Corporate profits are up 171% under Obama (better than under Reagan). Weekly unemployment filings are running at five year lows, so expect further improvements with non-farm payroll numbers and the unemployment rate. The economy continues to grow, housing just had another great month, interest rates are low, and inflation is under control. The President won re-election 51 - 47 percent. 47. Heh heh. The Senate became more Democratic despite having to defend twice as many seats, and the House became more Democratic too. Legislation is finally passing and about 1/3 of the Republican House is siding with the Democrats to pass that legislation. The country is moving forward, and the future looks bright.

Yes, this must be a terrible, terrible time for you.

Posted by: phx8 at January 29, 2013 7:13 PM
Comment #361037

j2t2

The congress remained officially in session. In any case, the DC Circuit Court decided against the Obama selections and that is the current interpretation of the law. Obama folks can appeal, but currently the decisions made by the members would run risk of being declared invalid at a later date. Since Congress is clearly back in session, Obama can validate his decisions and so avoid breaking the law.

Phx8

The subject is complicated but the purport is simple. A court has decided that Obama acted illegally. Until a higher court decides differently, this is the ruling.

Currently, the Obama appointees are acting outside the law and any rulings they make are liable to be declared invalid.


Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2013 7:21 PM
Comment #361039

This issue typifies the GOP approach during the past four years. This case could be a good example of winning the battle but losing the war. (Although how the battle turns out remains to be seen). Anyway, this approach of obstruction plays poorly with most Americans. It re-inforces the impression most Americans already have of the GOP: a party of obstruction, a party of negatives, with no ideas other than ‘no.’ Or worse, bad ideas.

Gov Bobbie Jindal, Republican from LA and possible contender for the next nomination, recently addressed the RNC, and he said this:

“We must stop being the stupid party.”

Preventing government agencies from functioning by refusing to approve appointments is not a winning strategy.

The first bill introduced in the Republican House was by 2012 candidate for the GOP nomination Michelle Bachmann. H.R. 1 was the thirty-something attempt to repeal Obamacare.

That’s stupid.

H.R. 23 was introduced in the Republican House by 2012 VP candidate Paul Ryan. It was yet another personhood bill to grant 14th amendment rights to fertilized eggs, including the right to own property.

That’s stupid.

It’s precisely these kind of personhood amendments that have led to the “bizarre and offensive” comments about rape made by Republicans in the last election. (That was Bobbie Jindal again. “Bizarre and offensive”). It contributes to the War on Women meme. Yet there it is. H.R. 23

But if you really want stupid, consider the 112th Congress and Republican bills re Global Warming: H.R. 1, 97, and literally dozens of others, (http://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/112/climate-change-legislative-proposals#GHG Regs) including bills to prevent the EPA from having any say concerning Global Warming issues.

That’s really, really stupid.

So I would suggest avoiding issues that re-inforce the image of the GOP as obstructionist, and intent on blocking government agencies from working, or refusing to raise the debt ceiling, or threatening to shut down the federal government.

Despite what Speaker Boehner said, no one’s threatening the GOP with annihilation. Republicans are hell-bent on doing themselves in.

Listen to Governor Bobbie Jindal. Not me. Bobbie Jindal.

Posted by: phx8 at January 29, 2013 9:17 PM
Comment #361040

The congress wasn’t in session if the whole pack of them took off home for the holidays C&J. The lights may have been on but no one was home, business wasn’t conducted. The HOR leaders have lied to the American people if they would have us believe they were conducting business without a quorum. They were obstructing progress. They were using the powers of their office to hinder the public good. Seems to me what has happened is Obama has finally stood up to these teabagger thugs that have held the nation back for so long.

With 187 years of precedence and other appeals court decisions to the contrary,the 3 judges seem to be complicit with the repub/conservatives in Congress in trying to keep the administration from doing its job. What a sad day when conservatives posing as judges put politics before country.

C&J dollar to a dime this gets overturned at the next level. If it doesn’t it seems the last 187 years of recess appointments were all illegal, what then?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2013 9:34 PM
Comment #361042

Of course Obama has to obey court rulings. He ain’t above the law anymore than we are. Even if him and the Liberals think so.

j2
I don’t understand C&J isn’t appointing people to positions during the Congressional recess something that has been done time and again for many years? Why is it all of a sudden illegal?

There ya go with the hypocrisy again. You tell folks all the time that just because the some else did it doesn’t make it right for the Republicans to do it. Now your saying that because some else has done it that it’s OK for Obama to do it. You want it both ways, but it doesn’t work that way.

BTW j2, The lights are always on in Congress, and no one is ever home.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2013 12:27 AM
Comment #361045

Ron Brown,
Reagan made 240 recess appointments, Bush # 41 77, Clinton 139, Bush 171, and Obama 32. The power for the President to make these appointments is in the Constitution:

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
Article 2, clause 3

In the case of the NLRB, what is at issue, in a nutshell, is whether a pro forma session counts as a recess or not.

This particular case doesn’t mean much more than a huge hassle for the NLRB and the CFPB. The Republicans intend to block these agencies from functioning under any circumstances.

IMO, the GOP loses regardless of how this case is resolved. Once again, they are rightly perceived as the party of obstruction, blocking good governance in the name of opposition to everyone and everything having to do with the Obama administration. This kind of negativity is its own reward.

Posted by: phx8 at January 30, 2013 12:48 AM
Comment #361051

Phx8: “IMO, the GOP loses regardless of how this case is resolved.”

That’s right. I would argue that President Obama made the appointments both because they needed to be done and he was looking for a fight. He has one now and it’s already making the GOP howl. Let’s have more light on just how bad the Republicans have obstructed President Obama. Let’s see who comes out on top.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 30, 2013 7:50 AM
Comment #361052

Ron for 187 years and over 200 appointments between GWB and Obama alone its called precedence. Hypocrisy is what the judges did.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2013 8:39 AM
Comment #361054

Ya just might have a point there j2.
Just keep a hat on and no one will notice.:)

phx8
Will Obama make these guys step down after this session of Congress? I somehow don’t think so. He thinks that he’s above the Constitution and doesn’t need to go by it. To him it’s just some pesky piece of paper that gets in his way of total control.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2013 9:24 AM
Comment #361055

One would think all people, left and right, would want a clarification on whether pro forma sessions count as a recess or not.
Seeing how they appear not to, one should also wonder why nobody said anything when “Reagan made 240 pro forma session appointments, Bush #41 77, Clinton 139, Bush 171.”

Republican Presidents made 452 pro forma recess appointments and the leftists didn’t say a word?

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2013 9:35 AM
Comment #361056

You all are talking about what you think should be done.

I am talking about obeying the law, or not. We can disagree with the court decision, but the President has the constitutional duty to abide by it unless and until it is changed.

It is a disturbing trend to disobey laws if you don’t like them.

The problem for all people who come before the board is that the decisions may not be binding. The loser may well take a page from the president’s book and simply ignore the decision and there would be no legal recourse. This is the problem with throwing out the rule of law.

Posted by: CJ at January 30, 2013 10:13 AM
Comment #361057

Ron Brown: “He thinks that he’s above the Constitution and doesn’t need to go by it.”

I wondered why the president the other day at his inauguration swore an oath to Saul Alinski with his hand on a copy of Rules For Radicals. Makes sense now that you explain how he feels about the Constitution.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 30, 2013 10:32 AM
Comment #361058
Republican Presidents made 452 pro forma recess appointments and the leftists didn’t say a word?

No one likes it kctim, when the “bad guys” makes an appointment they are trying to hold up. But it has been done by all parties forever. The proforma scam is just that, a blatant attempt to circumvent the procedures for political gain. Follow the money on this one, the Chamber of Commerce has bought many of these representatives in Congress and wants the Consumer protection and NRLB stopped from doing their jobs. The two branches of government, the legislative and judicial, are conspiring for political gain to make it happen, to keep the administration from appointing their choice for the positions.


I think we need to address the issue of judicial activism by these conservatives judges. This decision reeks of politics not law. When the judges write the law they usurp the constitution that Ron and others claim Obama is ignoring.

If we need to address anything it is the whole process of appointing people to positions in government. When did “advise and consent” come to mean “control and obstruct”? Just like when GWB made his choices that turned the stomach of every thinking American, those on the right need to grin and bear it as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2013 11:01 AM
Comment #361060

Grin and bear it? How do you address something by blaming “activist judges” and telling others to “grin and bear it?”
Shouldn’t we demand that our “leaders” always obey the rule of law, even when they disagree with it?

Even IF the conspiracy theory you claim were true, doesn’t it make sense to settle it now?

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2013 11:27 AM
Comment #361062

kctim I am saying that those on the other side of the aisle did just that, “grin and bear it” when GWB was in office. It is now your turn to do just that when it comes to appointments.

We should demand our representatives play fair and follow the rules through out the process. What we see here is obstruction of presidential appointments. The recess appointments are needed to keep the Congress in line. The new rule should be “if advice and consent is not given within X amount of time then it is automatically given”. Obstructing appointments because you do not like the particular area of government is the problem here.

After 187 years and many appointments it seems to me it is settled. Changing it now to make it appear Obama is not upholding the constitution and to keep the departments on hold are the issues.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #361063

So J2, you guys had to “grin and bear it” when Reagan and Bush made all of their appointments during a pro forma session?

I would think that after 187 years of pro forma session apppointments, that this would have already been settled? Why not just provide previous rulings that show President Obama has done nothing different? And if that doesn’t work, put things on hold and fix it. That, to me, is the issue, not if government sponsored special interest groups are put on hold or not.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2013 1:26 PM
Comment #361064
So J2, you guys had to “grin and bear it” when Reagan and Bush made all of their appointments during a pro forma session?

Yes we did kctim. Do you think it was easy watching GWB appoint foxes to watch the chickens, to appoint judges who put ideology before law?

Kctim read the Bloomberg article, the link is posted in phx8 comments above. Not all the appointments were in mid session recesses nor were all “proforma” appointments. Many were though and have been upheld by the courts until Obama did it.

The proforma bit is, in this case, a dishonest tactic used by the HOR leadership to keep appointments from being made when the Congress is in recess. The Congress conducted no business over the holidays, just had a show of being there.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2013 3:34 PM
Comment #361065

That’s what happens when you just grin and bear it j2, maybe your side should have done something besides grinning and bearing it.

Posted by: KAP at January 30, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #361066

“It is a disturbing trend to disobey laws if you don’t like them.”

Trend? Please, C&J, as many have pointed out, this has been SOP in modern presidential administrations.

J2t2 offers the most reasonable alternative that deserves repeating: “if advice and consent is not given within X amount of time then it is automatically given”.

The president was elected to manage the government. Obstructing appointments thwarts that mandate of the electorate. It is a petty means of denying a president the opportunity not only to implement the policies he was elected to implement and enforce but also contributes to general government dysfunction.

The only thing that Republicans seem to do well anymore is throwing monkey wrenches into the system.

Posted by: Rich at January 30, 2013 4:28 PM
Comment #361067

You can ask the President all you want to, but can you answer a few obvious questions?

1) Where in the constitution does it require a supermajority to advise and consent on Presidential Appointments? Or most other laws?

2) The Senate was not in session. The House engaged in pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments. Where is that move Constitutional?

3) Just how do you stand there and lecture the President for doing end runs around the constitution when this whole controversy stems from extraconstitutional measures Republicans have taken to try and nullify the President’s powers, and the functional operation of the Senate, which by the Framer’s intended system would have actually been able to to appoint these needed commissioners, thus avoiding the need for recess appointments in the first place, much less those made in spite of pro forma sessions of a part of Congress not involved in the process in the first place?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 30, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #361069

J2, Obama is President, so we definetely know what it’s like to watch somebody and his followers put ideology before law.

I understand that Republicans are trying to stop Obama from more ideological appointments.
I understand that leftist think it’s fine under Obama, but will complain when the next Republican President does the same thing.

What I can’t understand is why any HOR could sit back and do nothing while a President abuses recess appointments. What I can’t understand is why anybody would think it’s ok for our elected representatives to disregard the courts whenever they feel like it.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2013 5:08 PM
Comment #361071
,That’s what happens when you just grin and bear it j2, maybe your side should have done something besides grinning and bearing it.

KAP don’t blame the left side of the aisle for GWB, you guys voted him in. The fact is there are many times when a president appoints someone the other side dislikes. However it is the presidents job to administrate and that includes the people of his choice to run the different parts of the ship. His success and/or failures (as well as ours) depends on his choices. To block them without due cause only serves to make things worse. That is what has been happening. Senators filibuster and nothing gets done. The HOR keep Congress running when no one is there to run anything. A sham by them and malfeasance by the Senatator for not bringing it to head in hearings,IMHO.

When I say grin and bear it I am saying you guys on the right may not liked Obama’s appointees, just like many on the left didn’t like many of GWB’s appointees. But most of them went through, from time to time some get called out for their previous errors and such, which is good. To not do anything is just ideology getting in the way of doing your job.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2013 5:38 PM
Comment #361072

Rich

The president was elected to lead the government as stipulated by the Constitution. The reason we have checks and balances is so that guys like Obama cannot just make changes that they like, supported perhaps by 51% of the people. The government is to represent all the people.

Courts have decided what Obama did was against the law. He can work to get a different ruling or try to get laws changed. He is not supposed simply to disobey the law.

As I wrote, the legal problem for anyone asking the NLRB for a decision is that decision may not be valid. Indeed, Obama can ignore the law, but he cannot make his word binding on the litigants in the NLRB cases.

Stephen

The court decided. You guys really don’t like rule of law. I noticed that many times when you call on people to be punished and then get mad when they are not convicted because what you call crimes are not.

I respect rule of law. It is a basis of our civilization.

It is a good thing that Obama has run into some checks and balances. His performance might have been even worse.

Posted by: C&J at January 30, 2013 5:49 PM
Comment #361073

Adam
I wondered why the president the other day at his inauguration swore an oath to Saul Alinski with his hand on a copy of Rules For Radicals. Makes sense now that you explain how he feels about the Constitution.

I didn’t think that looked like a bible.
Anyone can put their hand on the Bible and swear to anything they want to. That doesn’t mean a thing unless they really mean it. And the way Obama acts I have a very hard time believing he means a word of the oath he took. I also have serious doubts about anyone in Congress meaning a word of the oath they took. I don’t believe that we’ve had a president, senator, or representative who’s meant a word of their oaths in more years than I care to remember. If they did why are they saying one thing and selling us down the river for their personal and political gain?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2013 5:54 PM
Comment #361076

j2 I’m not blameing anyone, your the one who stated that you grined and bore it, if your side is to lazy to do anything about it quit yer bitchin.

Posted by: KAP at January 30, 2013 6:35 PM
Comment #361077

by the way j2 I didn’t vote for GWB neither did I vote for the two IDIOTS your side put up.

Posted by: KAP at January 30, 2013 6:37 PM
Comment #361078

C&J-
The Constitution provides checks and balances. You’re just too politically lazy and self-righteous to avail yourself of them.

You don’t get a veto on everything. You lost the right to unilaterally oppose everything in the Senate when you lost the Senate. Nobody else has bottled up the Senate like this. Nobody dared to leave civility in the senate in such tatters, then boast about it, self-righteously patting themselves on the back for preventing bad policy.

And tell me, when that policy comes back to haunt you, are you brave enough to face the music? No. You won’t take responsbility for your party’s effects on the budget, you won’t admit you screwed up foreign policy. Everything, no matter how ridiculous, gets doubled down on.

The debt ceiling fight? Whose bright idea was it to bring that up again? Sequesters. Who brought that on, you or the Democrats?

When do you folks take the hint? When is the evidence going to be finally overwhelming enough that you get that people don’t want what you’re selling, that you’re having to stack the deck in every way you can to avoid change?

When do you finally let this nation take the political course it wants? They didn’t elect the Senate majority they did just to watch it sit on its ass. Let them do their business, and if you’re that sore about it, have the balls to step up to the plate with viable candidates and win the Senate back. Quit being cheating cowards about it. Quit keeping the Senate from doing its constitutionally mandated job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 30, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #361080

Stephen

I will repeat and continue to repeat the truth. The courts ruled against Obama. Obama folks are choosing to ignore the rule of law.

That is not lazy, I suppose. It is dangerous.

Re “you lost the right” - I really wish you would stop personalizing these thing, little guy. But let’s talk about it. “We” didn’t lose the right because “we” obviously still have it. The Democrats could take away the power, but they chose not to in their own self interests.

Re foreign policy - how is that Egypt, Libya, Russia, China, Syria and Guantanamo “reset” working out for you all?

“When do you finally let this nation take the political course it wants?” - What course is that? Is it Obamacare, opposed by a majority of Americans? More government spending, also opposed by a majority.

Re the Senate - let them pass a bill. Let President Obama make a concrete proposal that can garner the support of even a majority of Democrats.

And ask President Obama to obey the law.

Posted by: C&J at January 30, 2013 7:45 PM
Comment #361081

Had the courts been called in to rule on all previous such appointments, I would say go for it. That it’s done only against Obama is such hypocrisy it’s mind boggling. Quit trying to ruin the office of the presidency with your silly games.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 30, 2013 8:40 PM
Comment #361090

Woman, as stated to j2 if Democrats were to lazy or also as j2 said “grined and bore it” and brought it to the courts maybe we wouldn’t be discussing this now. It may have been resolved.

Posted by: KJAP at January 30, 2013 11:38 PM
Comment #361091

Disobey the law? Where on earth did you get that from C&J? You act like it was the SCOTUS, not some conservative yahoos in DC that made this ideological decision. Precedence and law is against the stupidity we have seen from these 3 judges. You make it sound as if Obama should drop everything and go fire these guys, as well as negate every decision they have made based upon the prattle of these conservative judges. How silly is that. Can you provide any precedence for other presidents doing something so foolish while the issue is still in the courts?

The White House has several options available to them. But it is a gross exaggeration to say they have disobeyed thee law.

What has happened to you guys? Have you no decency left now that Obama has won a second term?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2013 11:39 PM
Comment #361092


3) Just how do you stand there and lecture the President for doing end runs around the constitution when this whole controversy stems from extraconstitutional measures Republicans have taken to try and nullify the President’s powers, and the functional operation of the Senate, which by the Framer’s intended system would have actually been able to to appoint these needed commissioners, thus avoiding the need for recess appointments in the first place, much less those made in spite of pro forma sessions of a part of Congress not involved in the process in the first place?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 30, 2013 4:57 PM

Hypocracy again. Democratics are more than ready to use the constitution when it suits them. More that ready to call it a living document and ignore it when it suits them also.
Stephen Daugherty, where in the constitution, since you seem to think it should be adheared to this time, is it stated there should even be a National Labor Relations Board?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 31, 2013 1:11 AM
Comment #361102

KAP, The issue has been to the courts several times, in fact when GWB was president. But it seems you have mistaken what I said. I said Live with the choices made by the president when he appoints people to different positions, just like we did when GWB was president. Many dems grinned and beared it for 8 years when the vote went against them at hearings.

The problem here is the conservatives trying to shut down government operations by filibustering candidates for positions of agencies they don’t like.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2013 6:45 AM
Comment #361103

Disobey the law? Where on earth did you get that from C&J? You act like it was the SCOTUS, not some conservative yahoos in DC that made this ideological decision.

I don’t know how to break this to ya j2, SCOTUS isn’t the only court that can make rulings that folks have to obey. When any court makes a ruling, even one that has conservatives on it, you are to go by that ruling until it’s over turned by a higher court. So even the ‘great one’ has to go by this court’s decision until it’s overturned.
I think it will be overturned in a higher court. The ruling isn’t constitutional. But until it’s overturned Obama has to obey it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2013 8:30 AM
Comment #361104

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
Article 2, clause 3

It doesn’t matter if the House was in secession or not. The Senate was in recess, so Obama was able to make those appointments under the Constitution.
Y’all do know what the Constitution is don’t ya? It’s that pesky little piece of paper that Republicans want to ignore until they can use it to severe their agenda.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2013 8:38 AM
Comment #361107

j2, Live with, grin and bear it, what’s the difference, no you don’t have to live with the choices, voice your opinion to your Senator when you have oposition to a appointee. You talk about filibuster when it hurts your side but it’s ok when your side hurts the other. Get over it both sides use it to their advantage when needed. Maybe it was in the courts several times but this is the time it counts, obey it til it’s turned over or be held in contempt. Maybe there needs to be a law or constitutional amendment concerning recess appointments that states an appointee be confirmed by the senate upon return to session.

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2013 10:40 AM
Comment #361299

“A California-based hospital company says it will not comply with at least two National Labor Relations Board rulings from the past year after a federal court invalidated three of President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB last week.”


http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/01/31/exclusive-hospital-chain-defies-nlrb-rulings-after-court-decision/

Posted by: dbs at February 3, 2013 8:58 AM
Comment #361300

According to Jay Sekulow Obama is the first president to make a recess appointment during a pro forma session.

Jay Sekulow and Julian Epstein debate.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2119387414001/court-strikes-down-presidents-recess-appointments

Posted by: dbs at February 3, 2013 9:40 AM
Comment #361302

It seems the issue is not the legality of recess appointments, but whether or not pro forma session means that congress is officially in session. The court has ruled it is and therefore any recess appointment made is unconstitutional.

As far as I can tell Obama is the first president to push this envelope to see if it would go his way, and up to now it hasn’t. Comparing these appointments to those of other presidents is not a fair comparison. We will see if the SCOTUS will hear this case. If they refuse, it’s over and settled. Obama loses.

Posted by: dbs at February 3, 2013 10:29 AM
Post a comment