Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to appeal recess appointment ruling to Supreme Court
The Washington Times ^ | March 12, 2013 | Stephen Dinan

Posted on 03/12/2013 3:08:26 PM PDT by jazusamo

President Obama will elevate the controversy over his recess appointment powers to the highest level, with the National Labor Relations Board announcing Tuesday it will appeal to the Supreme Court a lower-court ruling that held his appointments to the board were illegal.

That move will put the thorny case straight before the justices, who will have to decide whether Mr. Obama overstepped his constitutional powers when he did an end-run around Congress last year and named three board members — using his recess-appointment powers at a time when the Senate considered itself still in session.

In January a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only were those appointments invalid, but that presidents for years have stretched their recess appointment powers beyond what is allowed under the Constitution.

The NLRB could have appealed that ruling to the full D.C. circuit, but it said Tuesday it will instead go to the high court for a final ruling.

“The Board, in consultation with the Department of Justice, intends to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court for review of that decision,” NLRB said.

It must file its appeal by April 25.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: appealtoscotus; bhoscotus; dccourtofappeals; lawsuit; nlrb; obama; recessappointments; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2013 3:08:26 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Think how badly we need six Clarence Thomases.


2 posted on 03/12/2013 3:10:24 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

assuming the court takes the case, which I doubt they will.


3 posted on 03/12/2013 3:11:53 PM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz is my adoptive Senator, Rand Paul for President in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Yep, hopefully Kennedy will go with conservatives on this and straighten out this recess appointment fiasco.


4 posted on 03/12/2013 3:14:17 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Obama will appeal everything to the SC, hoping one of the five conservative justices dies in the meantime. After that, he’s home-free even without control of the House of Representatives. He wouldn’t even need the 2014 elections, because some judicial way would be found to rubber-stamp anything he did through the Executive Branch.

We’re hanging by a thin thread here.


5 posted on 03/12/2013 3:14:43 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
“It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices” – Chief Justice John Roberts
6 posted on 03/12/2013 3:15:28 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The assclown will lose.


7 posted on 03/12/2013 3:21:05 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

He’s running out the clock.


8 posted on 03/12/2013 3:22:07 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Maybe this round but the spoiled little POS assclown won’t give up until he gets his way. He needs to be impeached and thrown in prison along with his entire socialist administration.

His actions against our veterans is nothing but despicable.


9 posted on 03/12/2013 3:28:42 PM PDT by rhubarbk (Proud Member Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club 1968-1969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

If a conservative justice dies he’ll wait until the senate is in recess then appoint his SC justice.


10 posted on 03/12/2013 3:30:50 PM PDT by Terry Mross (How long before America is gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

The same was said about zerocare...


11 posted on 03/12/2013 3:36:03 PM PDT by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
So, skipping the en banc? I expected that. "In your face, chump!"
12 posted on 03/12/2013 3:36:36 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; GreatOne; David; Red Steel; AJFavish; jazusamo; 1010RD; ...
...assuming the court takes the case, which I doubt they will.

I believe they only need four SCOTUS justices to agree to a writ of certiorari (i.e., to take the case) and there's a darn good chance the four left-leaning 'Rat appointees will sign off on that.

If the SCOTUS does take the case, anything is possible, as shown by Roberts' crass switch on Obamacare.

Hope they don't reverse, of course, and finally place some limit on Zero's power.

13 posted on 03/12/2013 3:39:20 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
They should tell the stinking turd that he violated his oath and that he no longer in office,.
14 posted on 03/12/2013 3:39:53 PM PDT by Domangart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Think how badly we need six Clarence Thomases.

Where is Robert Bork when you need him?

15 posted on 03/12/2013 3:44:46 PM PDT by dearolddad (/i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Yep, he's the in your face type jerk.

Question if you know:

Being he skipped the en banc if SCOTUS doesn't take this appeal would both findings of the DC Court be final?

16 posted on 03/12/2013 3:49:02 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
The DC Court of Appeals ruling is a pleasant history lesson of the appointments clause and separation of powers. It is thorough and 100% logic without a drip of leftwing idiocy.

If the usual four statists plus Kennedy find for Obama, they will blow the lid completely off what remains of our once republic and Constitution.

It will mean that ‘Bam can appoint whomever he wants, whenever he wants, including supreme court justices.

It will nearly complete the consolidation of government we have been heading for since the 17th Amendment.

17 posted on 03/12/2013 3:49:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
This is a problem. You have all 3 branches of government engaged in a legal battle over a power struggle that could have been resolved by courtesy and respect for the rule of law.

Guess who's footing the bill for ALL of this B.S.?

18 posted on 03/12/2013 3:50:54 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Being he skipped the en banc if SCOTUS doesn't take this appeal would both findings of the DC Court be final?

I don't think he can go back and ask for en banc. He can maybe ask (I don't know), but they can refuse. Not likely they'll go against SCOTUS, if it won't hear from Obastard.

19 posted on 03/12/2013 3:57:24 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Thank you.


20 posted on 03/12/2013 4:01:04 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

It would be nice if they did.


21 posted on 03/12/2013 4:02:45 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Guess it’s time for another satchel of cash from Obama’s boss, Soros, to make it over to the Supreme Court.


22 posted on 03/12/2013 4:12:15 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Fighting Obama without Boehner & McConnell is like going deer hunting without your accordion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

That would be the safe bet.
Just don’t take the case.


23 posted on 03/12/2013 4:16:17 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

My first thought also. Will we be betrayed by Roberts again?


24 posted on 03/12/2013 4:31:25 PM PDT by RedMDer (Support Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I don’t think Kennedy will overrule. The opinion is sound. What scares me is losing one of the conservatives or even Kennedy during Obama’s last term.


25 posted on 03/12/2013 4:38:04 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Suddenly, the SCOTUS building will burn down, and a “thorough investigation” will uncover the hand of right-wing tea-party extremists behind it, and a threat to do the same to the Capitol. POTUS will be granted extraordinary powers to deal with this crisis.


26 posted on 03/12/2013 4:40:40 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I agree. The opinion is solid.


27 posted on 03/12/2013 4:41:06 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

This is how you deal with communists:

On 26 May 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court unanimously denounced the Allende régime’s disruption of the legality of the nation in its failure to uphold judicial decisions. It refused to permit police execution of judicial resolutions that contradicted the Government’s measures.
Chamber of Deputies’ resolution

On 22 August 1973, with the support of the Christian Democrats and National Party members, the Chamber of Deputies passed 81–47 a resolution that asked “the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces”[18] to “put an immediate end” to “breach[es of] the Constitution . . . with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the Constitutional order of our Nation, and the essential underpinnings of democratic co-existence among Chileans.”

The resolution declared that the Allende Government sought “. . . to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State . . . [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system”, claiming it had made “violations of the Constitution . . . a permanent system of conduct.” Essentially, most of the accusations were about the Socialist Government disregarding the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government.

Specifically, the Socialist Government of President Allende was accused of:

ruling by decree, thwarting the normal legislative system
refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its partisans; not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives
ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller’s Office
sundry media offences; usurping control of the National Television Network and applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government...
allowing its socialist supporters to assemble armed, preventing the same by its right wing opponents
. . . supporting more than 1,500 illegal ‘takings’ of farms...
illegal repression of the El Teniente miners’ strike
illegally limiting emigration

Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected [socialist] armed groups, which . . . are headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces. President Allende’s efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterised as notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks.[19]

By 7:00 am on 11 September 1973, the Navy captured Valparaíso, strategically stationing ships and marine infantry in the central coast and closed radio and television networks. The Province Prefect informed President Allende of the Navy’s actions; immediately, the president went to the presidential palace, La Moneda, with his bodyguards, the Grupo de Amigos Personales (GAP) (Group of Personal Friends). By 8:00 am, the Army had closed most radio and television stations in Santiago city; the Air Force bombed the remaining active stations; the President received incomplete information, and was convinced that only a sector of the Navy conspired against him and his government.

President Allende and Defence minister Orlando Letelier were unable to communicate with military leaders. Admiral Montero, the Navy’s commander and an Allende loyalist, was rendered incommunicado; his telephone service was cut and his cars were sabotaged before the coup d’état, to ensure he could not thwart the opposition. Leadership of the Navy was transferred to José Toribio Merino, planner of the coup d’état and executive officer to Adm. Montero. Augusto Pinochet, General of the Army, and Gustavo Leigh, General of the Air Force, did not answer Allende’s telephone calls to them. The General Director of the Carabineros (uniformed police), José María Sepúlveda, and the head of the Investigations Police (plain clothes detectives), Alfredo Joignant answered Allende’s calls and immediately went to the La Moneda presidential palace. When Defence minister Letelier arrived at the Ministry of Defense, controlled by Adm. Patricio Carvajal, he was arrested as the first prisoner of the coup d’état.

Despite evidence that all branches of the Chilean armed forces were involved in the coup, Allende hoped that some units remained loyal to the government. Allende was convinced of Pinochet’s loyalty, telling a reporter that the coup d’état leaders must have imprisoned the general. Only at 8:30 am, when the armed forces declared their control of Chile and that Allende was deposed, did the president grasp the magnitude of the military’s rebellion. Despite the lack of any military support, Allende refused to resign his office.

By 9:00 am, the armed forces controlled Chile, except for the city centre of the capital, Santiago. Allende refused to surrender, despite the military’s declaring they would bomb the La Moneda presidential palace if he resisted being deposed. The Socialist Party proposed to Allende that he escape to the San Joaquín industrial zone in southern Santiago, to later re-group and lead a counter-coup d’état; the president rejected the proposition. The military rebels attempted negotiations with Allende, but the President refused to resign, citing his constitutional duty to remain in office. Finally, Allende gave a potent farewell speech, telling the nation of the coup d’état and his refusal to resign his elected office under threat.

Annoyed with negotiating, Leigh ordered the presidential palace bombed, but was told the Air Force’s Hawker Hunter jet aircraft would take forty minutes to arrive. Pinochet ordered an armoured and infantry force under General Sergio Arellano to advance upon the La Moneda presidential palace. When the troops moved forward, they were forced to retreat after coming under fire from GAP snipers perched on rooftops. General Arellano called for helicopter gunship support from the commander of the Chilean Army Puma helicopter squadron and the troops were able to advance again.[32] Chilean Air Force aircraft soon arrived to provide close air support for the assault (by bombing the Palace), but the defenders did not surrender until nearly 2:30 pm.[33]


28 posted on 03/12/2013 4:41:16 PM PDT by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Don’t worry we can trust Roberts to have our back. /s


29 posted on 03/12/2013 5:16:32 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dearolddad
Robert Bork did not support the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I can't support anybody who is that liberal.

30 posted on 03/12/2013 5:21:01 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

This should be a ‘no brainer’ even for this SCOTUS. We’ll see though.


31 posted on 03/12/2013 5:31:02 PM PDT by newzjunkey (bah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The supreme court is already stacked with political activist law breakers. Don’t expect any justice from them.


32 posted on 03/12/2013 5:44:24 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

if he’really has something on roberts he has his fifth. given how bad roberts has been i suspect he’s either being blackmailed or his family was threatened.


33 posted on 03/12/2013 6:10:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

After what happened with 0bamacare it wouldn’t surprise me.


34 posted on 03/12/2013 6:14:37 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I predict that if it gets to the Supreme Court, there will be a 7 to 2 vote and possibly 9 to 0 to uphold. Justice Kagan and Sotomayor might vote to overturn but Ginsburg and Bryer, although liberals, are smart enough to know that democrats will not hold the presidency forever. Liberals will not agree to give a future conservative president unlimited appointment power.


35 posted on 03/12/2013 6:24:57 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Obama knows he has the court, thanks to Roberts.


36 posted on 03/12/2013 6:42:58 PM PDT by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Der Leader’s case is based on a lie, which means we better watch our for Roberts. He’ll buy anything Zero pushes.


37 posted on 03/12/2013 7:40:15 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks jazusamo.


38 posted on 03/12/2013 7:41:40 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks for the ping!


39 posted on 03/12/2013 7:55:43 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
He’s running out the clock.

Meanwhile his nominees sit there in their unofficial capacities all the while assisting in the euthanasia of the USA.
40 posted on 03/12/2013 9:39:19 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rhubarbk

he needs to be thrown into prison. forget impeachment the Senate will not bring about Impeachment even if the House would make for impeachment. keep in mind Andrew jackson was impeached but in the next election a democratic senate overruled the impeachment and had it expunged from the records.

Obama is utilizing a concept he learned from his marxist, communist friends and confidants - autogolpe takeover of a country by executive decrees, banning the legislative bodies, debunking the constitution, and overriding the supreme court. he studies well informed him of the processes, and I strongly believe that he learned his political theory but utilizing a concept through the colleges and universities he attended.

he may been a student at Occidential and Columbia and no one ever saw him, because the college courses he took were at foreign countries through a concept called extended degree courses, credits and college courses offered through foreign universities and colleges - study abroad - whereby the courses would lead to a degree.

In the 80s I took a semester of study outside of the US. my coursework transferred. Oddly enough the next semester I received the entire year of a Pell Grant in one semester.

the concept is that a person paid the tuition and fees in the US, took the courses elsewhere and than returned back to the home university.

Now this will explain why the college transcripts are sealed. Financial aid transcripts are sealed too. Because Obama received his education yes at Occidential for 1 year, transferred to Columbia University and than went abroad - Study Abroad, came back in the summers and than went back to yet a different country.

here is how he used the academia system to gain the system and manipulated US taxpayers to pay for his education. He than went to Chicago and utilized his community organizer skills to learn at varoius socialist think tanks that are in Chicago broadening his marxist thoughts, theories and so forth to the point he learned the art of political manipulation theory.

This is just my thoughts.


41 posted on 03/13/2013 2:25:46 AM PDT by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
Exactly. He's still getting what he wants.
42 posted on 03/13/2013 3:56:41 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

With so much riding on so few on the court I pray they have a great security detail with them.

Not that I fear this administration would be that “direct”, but some lone wolf whacked out liberal who understands that a single vote could be all that stands between reality and the utopia they believe they will get if he was unopposed by the court.


43 posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:27 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Yep, hopefully Kennedy will go with conservatives on this and straighten out this recess appointment fiasco.

Only Kennedy's not the wild card anymore...it's John Roberts and I'll never trust that rat bastard to the right thing ever again.

44 posted on 03/13/2013 6:25:40 AM PDT by pgkdan ( "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
elevate the controversy? like the controversy isn't big enough already...
45 posted on 03/13/2013 7:18:38 AM PDT by Drawn7979
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

No worries, Obama knows he has a friend in that douchebag Roberts.

Roberts should impeached!


46 posted on 03/13/2013 7:27:43 AM PDT by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

47 posted on 03/13/2013 8:23:36 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Recess appointments are for “vacancies” that need to be filled while the Senate is out on recess, ie if Hillary would of died in a plane crash while the Senate was out then the pResident could make an appointment, it is not for filling position that were just created!


48 posted on 03/13/2013 8:37:04 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Bratch

Isn’t that one of the most ridiculous things anyone ever said?


50 posted on 03/13/2013 2:43:44 PM PDT by smalltownslick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson