Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against The President

[Stoked]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...reme-court-obama-senate-appointments/8528059/

They ruled that the Labor Board "recess" appointments he made were unconsititutional. That will call into question the validity of their sitting on the board and all the decisions passed by that board since they were placed on it.

Basically they said that he did so when Congress was technically still in session.

How do you think this is spun by the right and left?

 

[♪alt13]

The Supreme court is probably the single most important American institution.

The President will abide by the ruling. If countries want to emulate the US this is what they need to focus on.

It's good to see the court making an effort to come to more unanimous decisions. The court was becoming increasingly politicized and I think they are making an honest effort to curb that.


Who gives a **** about the spin? The left/right cheer squad can sit on it and spin.

 

[DutchJazzer]

that commie ******* finnally gets called on breaking the constitution. sadly this is only one instance that he gets called on.

he is a commie unamerican rpesident.

worse president EVER

sadly bush was a better president

 

[Stoked]

The Supreme court is probably the single most important American institution.

The President will abide by the ruling. If countries want to emulate the US this is what they need to focus on.

It's good to see the court making an effort to come to more unanimous decisions. The court was becoming increasingly politicized and I think they are making an honest effort to curb that.


Who gives a **** about the spin? The left/right cheer squad can sit on it and spin.

Unfortunately a rather wide swath of the American public.

 

[franklin]

Unfortunately a rather wide swath of the American public.

About 25 million on the extreme right, and maybe 5 million on the extreme left if you believe the extreme right's #'s on it. That's not a wide swath. Most DGAF, as they shouldn't.

 

[Stoked]

About 25 million on the extreme right, and maybe 5 million on the extreme left if you believe the extreme right's #'s on it. That's not a wide swath. Most DGAF, as they shouldn't.

I think that more than that pay attention and are swayed by what is pumped out. Even those that are not on either extreme. They still tune in and are influenced.

 

[babe]

It's actually a very bad decision, and it undermines the Constitution.

What we've heard is all ignorant spin.

So I'm editing this post because I made a statement of fact that is wrong. Here is where I have now gone for information:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf

My error was a technicality about when the Senate is in session and when it is in recess. I thought there was a calendar that is generally used to schedule sessions so that lawmakers can know in advance when they need to be in Washington, and that the standard recess nowadays is from mid December until after the State-of-the-Union address or Inauguration.. . . late January.

The ruling states that the Senate is in Session when it says it is Session, referring to a rule the Senate passed on Dec. 17 creating a "session" on two days of each week, spaced about three or four days apart. The days it was "in session", however, the Senate was empty, nobody showed up, as it was understood they were "pro-forma" sessions where nothing would be done.

So here we have the Senate and the Pres doing some fancy footwork. . . . The Senate intending to preclude any recess appoints, and the President looking for a chance to bypass the Senate in making his appointments.

The intent of the original clause in the Constitution seems to have been to address a need in days gone by, when the Senate met briefly for a few days each year, and The President might just need to fill a vacancy that arose during the long recess.

At any rate, my former comment was my impression that today we have all branches of government more or less living and acting under the idea that the Constitution is an old piece of crap and everybody can just ignore it all they want. So I tend to interpret government actions in that light, and I would not imagine that the Supreme Court really wants to curb Obama, nor that the Senate would really give a damn. In fact, it was not the Senate that protested the appointments, but an employer affected by a decision made by the NLRB appointees Obama chose.

kudos to OB for provoking me to check my facts.

Yes, the Supreme Court could not get around the fact that there was no recess, because if they claimed it was in recess, it was also in recess when Obamacare was passed, and that would invalidate a whole lot of midnight surprize legislation.

But the damning thing the Court ruled was that 5-4 part of the decision that declared that the Senate has to object to anything the President does under the color of the Constitutional claim of "recess appointment". This means the Court is not gonna get in the way unless the Congress forces it to. That is a powerful undermining principle that in effect will be used to claim all of Barack Obama's overreach executive orders, non-efforcement of laws he does't like, and the whole federal bureaucracy has been given carte blanche. . . . .


Unless you can get Congress to scream bloody murder.

First we have a bend-over Legislature, now we have a court that says if another branch of government doesn't protest, any other branch can do whatever it pleases.

Fits right in with the typical abused housewife syndrome. The Pres is the government, we gotta put up with it.

 

[LogGrad98]

About 25 million on the extreme right, and maybe 5 million on the extreme left if you believe the extreme right's #'s on it. That's not a wide swath. Most DGAF, as they shouldn't.

You are missing the 300 million in the middle that buy what is sold by the media, whatever side that media may be on. Most people I know listen to the news on the way to work then spew it all day long as tried and true fact without ever having read a single word about it, much less really understanding the issue and *gasp* thinking about it.

 

[One Brow]

But the damning thing the Court ruled was that 5-4 part of the decision that declared that the Senate has to object to anything the President does under the color of the Constitutional claim of "recess appointment".

I really wonder where you get your information.

There were two 5-4 position. One was that the President could make a recess appointment during an intra-session break of 10 days, as well as a break between sessions. The other is that the President can use this power to fill vacancies that happened before a session break, as opposed to only vacancies during the session break.

The one-year limit is still in effect (if the Senate does not approve the position within a year, the appointee must vacate the office).

https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/

 

[♪alt13]

You are missing the 300 million in the middle that buy what is sold by the media, whatever side that media may be on. Most people I know listen to the news on the way to work then spew it all day long as tried and true fact without ever having read a single word about it, much less really understanding the issue and *gasp* thinking about it.

Ask ten random people on the street about this ruling and you will get a blank stare from at least 9. Most folks really dgaf.

 

[Stoked]

Ask ten random people on the street about this ruling and you will get a blank stare from at least 9. Most folks really dgaf.

On this decision I would agree with you. But the topic had kind of swayed to the portion of the public that is swayed by one news channel or the other.