An AP Story.
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - WSJ.com
These childish games - the President waiting and delaying until he can do what he wants without opposition; The House using technicalities to officially stay in session (even though they did nothing as a legislative body) so that he can't - are ridiculous.
President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor-relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
[...]
Mr. Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.
[...]
The Obama administration is 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.
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
Accountable;1417866 wrote: An AP Story.
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - WSJ.com
These childish games - the President waiting and delaying until he can do what he wants without opposition; The House using technicalities to officially stay in session (even though they did nothing as a legislative body) so that he can't - are ridiculous.
If this sort of infighting continues then it will bring the country to its knees - do they not see that?
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - WSJ.com
These childish games - the President waiting and delaying until he can do what he wants without opposition; The House using technicalities to officially stay in session (even though they did nothing as a legislative body) so that he can't - are ridiculous.
If this sort of infighting continues then it will bring the country to its knees - do they not see that?
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
Bryn Mawr;1417882 wrote: If this sort of infighting continues then it will bring the country to its knees - do they not see that?
They simply don't care so long as they score off the other side.
They simply don't care so long as they score off the other side.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
flopstock;1417883 wrote: They simply don't care so long as they score off the other side.
If members of Congress continue to act like little kids at a sporting competition, I'd like to see a law requiring them to dress in team uniforms with emblems showing their "sponsors" (contributors, those who bribe them, etc.), so we can easily see who owns them.
If members of Congress continue to act like little kids at a sporting competition, I'd like to see a law requiring them to dress in team uniforms with emblems showing their "sponsors" (contributors, those who bribe them, etc.), so we can easily see who owns them.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
I'm fine with it. So long as they're in gridlock they can't do more harm. It's also really strong support for the argument to reverse this trend of centralizing all power and control in Washington, and returning the lion's share to state & local governments. It's high time we kill the blob.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
Wandrin;1417887 wrote: If members of Congress continue to act like little kids at a sporting competition, I'd like to see a law requiring them to dress in team uniforms with emblems showing their "sponsors" (contributors, those who bribe them, etc.), so we can easily see who owns them.
We should do that anyway. I'd love to see big patches all over their blazers, company-colored ties, sponsor logos all over their web page, ... :wah:
We should do that anyway. I'd love to see big patches all over their blazers, company-colored ties, sponsor logos all over their web page, ... :wah:
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
Bryn Mawr;1417882 wrote: If this sort of infighting continues then it will bring the country to its knees - do they not see that?
To me, the Constitution is well worth the fight. I mean really.
He was in his “We can’t wait! — for Congress and legality — mode, as he was when he unilaterally rewrote laws pertaining to welfare, immigration and education. On Jan. 4, he used recess appointments to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even though the Senate said it was not in recess. Obama’s cheeky Humpty Dumpty rejoinder was: I decide what “recess means. Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says.
Of course that is from an opinion piece by George F Will.
To me, the Constitution is well worth the fight. I mean really.
He was in his “We can’t wait! — for Congress and legality — mode, as he was when he unilaterally rewrote laws pertaining to welfare, immigration and education. On Jan. 4, he used recess appointments to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even though the Senate said it was not in recess. Obama’s cheeky Humpty Dumpty rejoinder was: I decide what “recess means. Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says.
Of course that is from an opinion piece by George F Will.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
"Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says."
The last big one (Obamacare), they decided the Constitution said things that weren't even written. Hell, they even said the law they were discussing said things that weren't written. When it says things never said, it could mean anything at all. There is no rule of law in the US anymore, only a pretense to keep up appearances.
I predict SCOTUS will support the president, if only to keep the peace like they did last time.
The last big one (Obamacare), they decided the Constitution said things that weren't even written. Hell, they even said the law they were discussing said things that weren't written. When it says things never said, it could mean anything at all. There is no rule of law in the US anymore, only a pretense to keep up appearances.
I predict SCOTUS will support the president, if only to keep the peace like they did last time.