• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power[W:74:88]

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a blow to President Barack Obama by cutting back the power of the White House to temporarily fill senior government posts without Senate approval.

In a ruling that will constrain future presidents, the court held on a 9-0 vote that the three appointments Obama made to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 were unlawful. The decision limits the ability of presidents to make so-called "recess appointments" without Senate approval.

In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power



In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.

Agreed, the court showed true political neutrality in the dolling out of this decision. They understand that "recess appointments" were allowed earlier in the constitution due to the EXTENDED and LONG periods of time that congress could be out of session (Sometimes MONTHS or a Year at a time) since back then senators didn't have private jets etc.... they had a horse and carraige and for some of the far western reps the trip was quite long indeed. (Imagine trying to get from California to DC in just a horse and carraige, or even a train back then).
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The point?

If this is true of Obama:

In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.

Then the same is true of Bush. Had had just as many or more recess appointments to the NLRB.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The point?

That this is a trend in the office of the presidency that must be stopped, not just a democratic leadership problem. Good on the SCOTUS they're on a roll.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Agreed, the court showed true political neutrality in the dolling out of this decision. They understand that "recess appointments" were allowed earlier in the constitution due to the EXTENDED and LONG periods of time that congress could be out of session (Sometimes MONTHS or a Year at a time) since back then senators didn't have private jets etc.... they had a horse and carraige and for some of the far western reps the trip was quite long indeed. (Imagine trying to get from California to DC in just a horse and carraige, or even a train back then).

On the other hand, is the intention to allow congress to create fake sessions with the sole purpose of blocking an express presidial power?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power



In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.

SCOTUS are busy little beavers before they head off on their summer vacations, ain't they?

I got that on my breaking news notification this morning. I think what amazes me most isn't HOW they ruled, it's that it is one of the few times in recent memory that a "controversial" ruling was completely unanimous.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

On the other hand, is the intention to allow congress to create fake sessions with the sole purpose of blocking an express presidial power?

The power to declare session or recess is one that is EXCLUSIVE to congress as are the rules for Quorum which dictates when congress is in SESSION and WHEN IT IS OUT OF SESSION. Congress may at any time with any number of members qualify for QUORUM if they intend to have a quorum. The problem with these "recess" appointments made by Obama is that HE declared congress to be in RECESS without congress declaring recess, that is the problem with the appointments. No other president perhaps since Lincoln has declared congress in "recess" without it having actually been declared. The Problem really isn't with "recess appointments" but that Obama declared the senate in "recess" without the senate declaring itself in RECESS which is its EXCLUSIVE power.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The power to declare session or recess is one that is EXCLUSIVE to congress as are the rules for Quorum which dictates when congress is in SESSION and WHEN IT IS OUT OF SESSION. Congress may at any time with any number of members qualify for QUORUM if they intend to have a quorum. The problem with these "recess" appointments made by Obama is that HE declared congress to be in RECESS without congress declaring recess, that is the problem with the appointments. No other president perhaps since Lincoln has declared congress in "recess" without it having actually been declared. The Problem really isn't with "recess appointments" but that Obama declared the senate in "recess" without the senate declaring itself in RECESS which is its EXCLUSIVE power.

Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

If this is true of Obama:



Then the same is true of Bush. Had had just as many or more recess appointments to the NLRB.

It's not recess appointments per se that the Court objects to but the recess appointments made when the Senate wasn't in recess. In short, the Senate decides when they are in recess, not the President.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

it is funny SCOTUS ruled correctly but the Senate was acting in bad faith. The do nothing Congress is just something you can get until we change the Constitution or the way we elect them.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

What is the relevance? There was no recess for ofailure. That is the point. Stay on topic instead of just constantly defending the loser in charge.

It's not recess appointments per se that the Court objects to but the recess appointments made when the Senate wasn't in recess. In short, the Senate decides when they are in recess, not the President.



President George W. Bush, who recess appointed seven of his nine NLRB nominees.

Some of Bush's NLRB nominees were Senate confirmed, including Peter Hurtgen and Peter Schaumber who each served multiple terms, including one under a recess appointment. But the vast majority were able to circumvent the standard process.

FLASHBACK: Bush Recess Appointed 7 of 9 NLRB Members

Source is probably crap, but it documents whom Bush appointed and how the standard procedure was circumvented in most of his 7/9 recess appointments.



During Bush's appointees, did congress use a horse and carriage or a train?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

It's not recess appointments per se that the Court objects to but the recess appointments made when the Senate wasn't in recess. In short, the Senate decides when they are in recess, not the President.

Yes, and the president picked this fight because their being "in session" was a sham, and everybody knows it. I expected this outcome, but it was an issue that needed to be settled. Now we know: congress gets to pretend to be in session expressly to block a specific presidential power outlined in the constitution. The technicality matters more than the intention.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power



In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.

Perhaps some pressure from the American people is brought to bear on this administration. Even though SCOTUS justices are people and have their own set of personal prejudices, they do come through on the side of the Constitution most of the time. I have felt a letter to my congressman coming on for a while now. But it isn't really Congress who limits presidential power, it is the SCOTUS in its interpretation of the US Constitution. Bravo!
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

If this is true of Obama:



Then the same is true of Bush. Had had just as many or more recess appointments to the NLRB.

Is it even possible for there to be a discussion on this forum without throwing Bush into the mix? Bush is NOT president. Hasn't been for 6 long years.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Is it even possible for there to be a discussion on this forum without throwing Bush into the mix? Bush is NOT president. Hasn't been for 6 long years.

Apparently not. I've seen Bush mentioned more times on this board this morning than he was probably mentioned on June 26, 2006. Hell, they are all even yakking about Reagan all over this board.

It's the weakest argument that anyone can make, and the fact that some are repeatedly and for no reason mentioning Bush seems to indicate they also know that Obama is a failure, but they just can't bring themselves to say it.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.

Wrong. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with the congress being obstructionist. It's part of their function to do that if they decide to do it. The President does not have the authority to decide when the Senate is in recess. Only the Senate can do that.

As was the case with those appointments to the NLRB, an appointment by this President does not serve the people well. The people are better served by continued obstructionism. Obama would rather die than make a sensible, moderate appointment, so let those slots go unfilled.

Pres. Obama was slapped down good and hard by the whole court, his appointees included. What he did was blatantly illegal, and everyone knew it at the time. I predict this will not be the last time the court draws him up short.

The Wagner Act should be abolished. It's an obsolete law that now only serves to keep socialist labor ideologies living on in a kind of zombie existence behind which corrupt union fat cats reside.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.

Presidential Authority is limited MORE than any other Authority in the constitution, and rightfully so because the President is One man and could make decisions that have a huge impact on the country if given TOO MUCH power, which is why a MAJORITY of constitutional power rests with the legislature (as it is made up of a multitude of people and is split against itself given the bicameral legislative system we have.

The effect of congress blocking an appointment via a "sham" session is far less than that of a president make a "snap recess appointment" with what you are suggesting the president could appoint people while members of congress are "sleeping for a night" etc etc... the point is that the potential for ABUSE which effects america negatively rests with the Executive, not with the Legislature.

Also I already pointed out that presidents were given the power to make "recess appointments" because there were times in the 1800s where congress would be out of session for MONTHS or even a YEAR at a time (Senators and Reps would have to travel slowly by Horse or Train which would take WEEKS or MONTHS to reach DC depending on where they are coming from.) The point is that these "recess appointments" violate the spirit of the law in regards to WHY the president was given the power in the first place.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Eco's point is, which I'm sure you're all well aware of and obstinately feigning ignorance of in a sad and desperate attempt to NOT appear like desperate, hypocritical partisan hacks....

Is that you can't condone it when YOURE guy does it, because it opens the door for future people to do it as well. Our court system operates on precedent.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.

Yeah, technicalities are a bitch, aren't they? I bet you were equally pissed at the Supreme Court a couple of years ago when Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA was a tax, even though Obama swore up and down that it was just a penalty, allowing Roberts to weasel into ruling the ACA constitutional.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Eco's point is, which I'm sure you're all well aware of and obstinately feigning ignorance of in a sad and desperate attempt to NOT appear like desperate, hypocritical partisan hacks....

Is that you can't condone it when YOURE guy does it, because it opens the door for future people to do it as well. Our court system operates on precedent.

And this thread isn't about partisanship, and it isn't about Bush. It's about the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS operates on an interpretation of the Constitution. They didn't rule as they did because of Bush.

That's the topic.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Yes, and the president picked this fight because their being "in session" was a sham, and everybody knows it. I expected this outcome, but it was an issue that needed to be settled. Now we know: congress gets to pretend to be in session expressly to block a specific presidential power outlined in the constitution. The technicality matters more than the intention.

The Senate has absolute authority over its own business. If they choose to remain in session to block the President then that is their prerogative. Advise and consent means that the Senate can obstruct appointments. The President does not have the authority to rule parts of the Constitution "technicalities" and unilaterally dispense with them. That would be highly illegal, a matter for impeachment in fact. But that's what he did in this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom