Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power
Everything you wrote is wrong. The Democrats control the Senate. It is they who deliberately kept the Senate in session.
You're wrong - that's laughable. You need to read up on Senate rules, and how they operate, and then read about recent history.
The Democrats don't want to do away with the filibuster because the shoe is likely to be on the other foot pretty soon. Keeping a nominee from being appointed isn't shutting down the government, it's keeping sorry nominees from getting jobs and thereby improving the government. The Senate decided that they want the minority to have the power to stop votes, and so they have it until the Senate decides otherwise. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change. The filibuster may not be in the Constitution but is sure as heck is in the Constitution that the Senate has authority over how it does things, and it chooses to keep the filibuster.
First of all, the recess appointment was intended to allow POTUS to fill nominees. You can't recognize that the Founders offered a safety valve to fill positions, then claim that filling them isn't necessary. If filling them or not, whenever, is OK, why does the Constitution provide an outlet to prevent undue delay?
Second, we'll see whether the rules change in early 2015, but I think you're wrong. For two reasons. Reid and some of the old guard Senators have been unwilling to upset decades long rules in the Senate for the reasons you outline, but there is growing opposition to keeping the rules on filibusters, and sustaining rules that are so openly abused by the GOP just can't last forever. When Obama made the decision to declare the recesses, there were according to
NYT, 74 nominees waiting on votes filibustered by the GOP. Another 100 were stuck in committee. That's NOT how the 'advise and consent' function is intended to operate.
Second, the minute it helps the GOP to torpedo filibusters, they will (IMO, without a second's hesitation) do so and ram through nominees and judges as fast as they can hold votes. They've been openly abusing the rules for the entire Obama term. Why would they respect the process when they gain Senate control?
A neutered NLRB is a good thing. Better would be an abolished NLRB.
OK, that's your opinion and there is a process for abolishing it. Hold votes in the House and Senate, then get a POTUS to sign a bill, or override his or her veto. The Constitutional option isn't to refuse to approve ANY nominee necessary for it to function.
I just think people are being shortsighted in this. The GOP is forcing a set of rules that undermines the rights of the minority, in my opinion. Well see I guess.