THE recess, not A recess......Ooops!

[Tom]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews

White House attorneys are expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Do over time.
Good decision - worth reading.

[TexasDolly]

Thanks for the post. Let's hope it stands .
TD

[Robert Goren]

Does this mean that anybody's actions that were recess appointments are also invalid?

[TexasDolly]

Does this mean that anybody's actions that were recess appointments are also invalid?
I think the point was that there was no recess actually.
TD

[Tom]

The one's done lawfully are fine - just the under-handed back door ignore the law kind that Obama pulled. Tried to pull.

[JustRalph]

Does this mean that anybody's actions that were recess appointments are also invalid?

Many will be........but most are no longer in office. Moot point on most but any decisions the NLRB made during this time could come into question.

Think NLRB and Boeing........

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833104577070572768248242.html

I am sure there's more. Although the Boeing complaint was eventually dropped it's the biggest politically motivated one in years

[mostpost]

I think the court is correct here, but the reasoning is wrong. The Constitution states that the President can make recess appointments during the Recess of the Senate. The Recess us defined as that period between Sessions of Congress. By Sessions we mean overall sessions, not daily sessions or afternoon and morning sessions. For example, the 112th Congress had one Session in 2011 and one Session in 2012.

The argument was that the 112th Congress was never in Recess between its first Session (2011) and its second Session (2012) because there were Pro Forma sessions lasting a few minutes on every third day. But those were only held because neither body can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other body. No business was conducted at these pro forma sessions and most Senators were not even in Washington DC on those days. Therefore, the Recess was in effect between the two sessions.

BUT , the Constitution also states that
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. The Senate did indeed meet on Jan 3, 2012 which means that the 2nd Session of the 112th Congress began on that day. The Recess was over. Obama made his appointments on Jan. 4, 2012. Therefore, they would not be legal Recess appointments.

[mostpost]

Of course the question is why did Obama feel he had to make recess appointment in this and other cases. The answer is a refusal by Senate Republicans to consider those appointments. I did say a refusal to approve them, I said consider them. One of the positions had been vacant since August of 2011. Another since August of 2010. Any appointments sent to the Senate for approval had been blocked by one Republican Senator or another. They were not voted down, they were not even allowed to come to the floor for a vote. Ninety nine Senators could have favored the nominee and it did not matter.

[mostpost]

Here is another interesting thing if you read the decision. The DC Court concluded that the NLRB decision in the case was correct. Under the law Noel Canning acted improperly.

[hcap]

Does this mean John Bolton can no longer appear on Fox? as a so-called "expert: :cool:

[johnhannibalsmith]

The evolution of mostpost's position on any subject... from a personal opinion that makes his head hurt like he's kin to George Bergeron to an obligatory justification that puts his mind at ease like the sight of a pretty ballerina... :lol:

[mostpost]

The evolution of mostpost's position on any subject... from a personal opinion that makes his head hurt like he's kin to George Bergeron to an obligatory justification that puts his mind at ease like the sight of a pretty ballerina... :lol:
That makes no sense.

[johnhannibalsmith]

That makes no sense.

Sure it does. LOTS and LOTS of it. Full of sense. Probably the only sensible thing I've posted in 2014.

[Tom]

BUT , the Constitution also states that
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Maybe when you consider they have not passed a budget in 4 years, the court figured, Hell, they might as well have been on recess! :lol::lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

That makes no sense.

Hey, I found you a short story that might make you understand the depths of my sensibility. No, not really. But, I like it, I guess you haven't enjoyed it since my references made you question my sensibilities, and maybe you will too. Not sure why it is posted in what I believe to be its entirety as I haven't actually read it in years, but I don't think this website or my post with a link can be chastised for a copyright infringement any more than Google can be for providing me with the link.

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Edited: I looked around a bit and there are at least several full texts of the story on different places and then dozens of other sites that link to those texts. I guess it must be public domain after a half-century or something. :D

[PaceAdvantage]

Good little short story...kind of appropriate for the times we are currently in...

Days where "everyone" gets a trophy... :lol:

[JustRalph]

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/04/a-sign-of-the-things-to-come-hospital-chain-gives-obamas-nlrb-seiu-the-finger/

Hospital gives the finger to Obama's NLRB due to unconstitutional appointments