• 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!

High Court Rebukes President Obama on Recess Appointments

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wiped out in a unanimous decision, SCOTUS spanks POTUS.:mrgreen: A lawless Executive is brought to heel.:lol:

High Court Rebukes President Obama on Recess Appointments

"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama lacked constitutional authority to make high-level government appointments at a time he declared the Senate in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.
“When the Senate declares that it is in session and possesses the capacity, under its own rules, to conduct business,” that is sufficient to keep the president from making recess appointments, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court. . . . "


 
It was never remotely credible for POTUS to claim that the Senate was in recess when the Senate said that it was in session.
 
Another blow to tyranny.
 
Wiped out in a unanimous decision, SCOTUS spanks POTUS.:mrgreen: A lawless Executive is brought to heel.:lol:

High Court Rebukes President Obama on Recess Appointments

"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama lacked constitutional authority to make high-level government appointments at a time he declared the Senate in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.
“When the Senate declares that it is in session and possesses the capacity, under its own rules, to conduct business,” that is sufficient to keep the president from making recess appointments, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court. . . . "



I'm amazed it was a unanimous vote! I wouldn't have predicted that in a hundred years! :shock:

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:
 
I'm amazed it was a unanimous vote! I wouldn't have predicted that in a hundred years! :shock:

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

It was a pretty clear constitutional call.:peace

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
 
I'm amazed it was a unanimous vote! I wouldn't have predicted that in a hundred years! :shock:

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Skepticism at oral argument was pretty widespread.
 
It was never remotely credible for POTUS to claim that the Senate was in recess when the Senate said that it was in session.

There were legitimate legal questions concerning the Senate's conduct that the Supreme Court didn't consider. It is not credible for the Senate to claim that a single legislator banging a gavel for 30 seconds before an empty chamber constitutes a session. But, they didn't want to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be so they chose to allow the Senate to strip the Executive Branch of a power granted to it in the Constitution.
 
There were legitimate legal questions concerning the Senate's conduct that the Supreme Court didn't consider. It is not credible for the Senate to claim that a single legislator banging a gavel for 30 seconds before an empty chamber constitutes a session. But, they didn't want to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be so they chose to allow the Senate to strip the Executive Branch of a power granted to it in the Constitution.

They considered them. The just discarded them.
 
There were legitimate legal questions concerning the Senate's conduct that the Supreme Court didn't consider. It is not credible for the Senate to claim that a single legislator banging a gavel for 30 seconds before an empty chamber constitutes a session. But, they didn't want to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be so they chose to allow the Senate to strip the Executive Branch of a power granted to it in the Constitution.

On the contrary, the SCOTUS was unanimous in deciding the Senate makes its own rules, and said that in their ruling.:peace
 
On the contrary, the SCOTUS was unanimous in deciding the Senate makes its own rules, and said that in their ruling.:peace

Like I said, they chose not to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be. Allowing the Legislature to eliminate Constitutionally granted powers without a Constitutional Amendment is a mistake.
 
There were legitimate legal questions concerning the Senate's conduct that the Supreme Court didn't consider. It is not credible for the Senate to claim that a single legislator banging a gavel for 30 seconds before an empty chamber constitutes a session. But, they didn't want to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be so they chose to allow the Senate to strip the Executive Branch of a power granted to it in the Constitution.

No, the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments. The constitution also gives the house and the senate the power to make their own rules and if one of their rules say the senate is in session by one senators pounding a gavel twice, then it is in session per the constitution.

No one doubts that the Republicans did this just to prevent recess appointments. But since Reid used the nuclear option, President Obama can just re-appoint them with no fuss, all constitutional wise. Now if I was President Obama, I would re-appointment them today and let the senate work its magic because there is a 50-50 chance come 20 Jan 2015, the senate may be in Republican hands.
 
No, the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments. The constitution also gives the house and the senate the power to make their own rules and if one of their rules say the senate is in session by one senators pounding a gavel twice, then it is in session per the constitution.

It is a mistake to allow the Legislature to eliminate powers granted to the Executive by the Constitution through the use of parliamentary smoke and mirrors instead of a Constitutional Amendment. Its the Legislature run amok.
 
Like I said, they chose not to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be. Allowing the Legislature to eliminate Constitutionally granted powers without a Constitutional Amendment is a mistake.

as opposed to say congress granting itself powers without a constitutional amendment? like say the NEW DEAL?
 
Like I said, they chose not to wade into what the definition of a Senate session should be. Allowing the Legislature to eliminate Constitutionally granted powers without a Constitutional Amendment is a mistake.

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to make its own rules. That's why the decision was unanimous.
 
It is a mistake to allow the Legislature to eliminate powers granted to the Executive by the Constitution through the use of parliamentary smoke and mirrors instead of a Constitutional Amendment. Its the Legislature run amok.

The way I look at it, who is the best one to say whether or not the senate is in session. The senate or the president? Which one knows the rules of the senate better, the senate or the president? When there is a recess, a formal recess the president still can make all the recess appointment his little heart desires. President Obama is the first president to challenge this quickie gavel session or pro forma sessions.

Actually I think it was senator Harry Reid who started the pro forma session to block bush appointment. I did find this article about it:

Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush | TheHill

and this one which in it states:

The Supreme Court casts doubt on claims that allowing the pro-forma session gambit — which Democrats invented to use against President George W. Bush, and Republicans are now using against President Obama — will alter the balance of power between the branches.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/25/us/annotated-supreme-court-recess-decision.html?_r=0

So right, wrong or indifferent, the pro forma sessions have been now used by both political parties to stop the recess appointments of the other political party. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Back
Top Bottom