Posted on 06/24/2013 8:07:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It won’t be for a while, as this session of the Supreme Court will come to an end this week with the release of its most controversial decisions of the term. However, next year, the court will hear arguments on what constitutes a recess, and how much power the President has to make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate:
President Obama’s recess appointments to a federal agency– made without Senate confirmation– will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, a major constitutional test of executive power. …
The case sets up a high-stakes Supreme Court fight between the other two branches of government. Oral arguments will be held in public session later this year or early next.
This was inevitable, since the White House made it clear that it would not accept the decision of an appellate court that not only struck down Barack Obama’s appointments to the NLRB (and Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), but also severely limited recess-appointment power overall. A second appellate decision didn’t go quite as far in May, but still negated the NLRB’s work since those appointments.
The surprise, if there is one, is the delay in the Supreme Court’s acceptance and consideration of the case. The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court in March after the first decision, and the White House has obstinately refused to recognize the legal implications of the decision on the NLRB’s work throughout 2012. That creates a lot of confusion about compliance issues, which would seem to argue for rapid consideration rather than wait for months or perhaps more than a year for clarification.
Does this hint that the court will pull back a little from the first appellate decision to severely restrict the definition of recess appointments? I’d be careful about making that assumption. If the court wanted to endorse that definition, they could have declined to hear the case, which would have left that as precedent — albeit a relatively weak precedent. They also may want to strengthen the precedent by having the top court issue a definitive opinion, and with the obvious constitutional issues at play — especially in the checks and balances between the legislature and executive branches on agency law — the court may have decided that they cannot avoid the question. Other appellate and district court decisions have muddied the waters on this point as well, so clarity will be appreciated. If they wanted to redefine the appellate decision, that would argue for emergency consideration; for now, the appellate decision stands.
This is one of those executive-legislature fights that traditionally both have sought to keep out of the courts for fear of ending up with a black-and-white decision that allows for no ambiguity (executive privilege is another). It’s difficult to see the Supreme Court deciding that the executive branch can determine better than the legislature when the latter is in or out of session, though This White House — and those that succeed it — will probably end up regretting the obstinacy that pushed them to have the Supreme Court definitively rule on this issue.
That is the subject of a separate case, I believe in the Third Circuit IIRC, which interpreted the recess clause as you have stated. No recess appointments unless the vacancy occurs while the Senate is in recess.
I wish I had more confidence in the Supreme Court. Just tell John Roberts a lie and he’ll buy it. And this regime excels at lying.
obama’s appointments weren’t RECESS appointments. He took it upon HIMSELF to declare congress in recess so he could do what the wanted
once a cheater, always a cheater
I think it’s time that red states declare some of the SC’s decisions unconstitutional and refuse to follow them, and repeat for the fed gubmints laws and rules which violate State’s Rights. What’s good for the goose - if BO can ignore or make up his own laws, so can we. At least the states have that right - Big Brother has usurped our rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This is why they want to disarm us.
I wouldn’t expect anything good or just to come from SCOTUS ever again.
Roberts has clearly been compromised via NSA/DHS/CIA/FBI/whatever other Orwellian groups are out there.
I suspect a bit of his dubious behavior can be traced to his mysterious, solitary “vacations” to Malta.
with a little Reggie Love action.
I may be wrong but I think one of the rulings went farther than anyone expected. They ruled that the only recess was in between two separate sitting congresses, not in between normal breaks.
Normally, it is only when there is egregious abuse that the Supreme Court will agree to settle an argument between the other two branches. Even though a practice may not be in strict compliance with the constitution, the court will not step in unless one or the other goes too far. In this case, Oboma pushed beyond allowable limits, and the appeal court decided based on the constitution, not past practice. It is fairly clear that the original intent of the recess appointment power was to provide for continuity of government when the Senate was not physically available to consider appointments, not as a way to bypass the Senate when confirmation was unlikely or inconvenient. With a full time congress, recess appointments are actually no longer necessary and since the issue has been forced on them, the Supreme Court will likely rule that way.
Big freaking deal? Are people on this board still waiting for the Roberts court to do anything about Obama?
Roberts is another legacy gift of W.
The Senate will be in recess for the next 20 years.
The whole Obama planned Pesidency.
Because they were made when the Senate was, in fact, in recess.
Only the Obama administration has chosen to claim the Senate was in recess when the Senate said it was not.
The surprise, if there is one, is the delay in the Supreme Court’s acceptance and consideration of the case. The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court in March after the first decision, and the White House has obstinately refused to recognize the legal implications of the decision on the NLRB’s work throughout 2012. That creates a lot of confusion about compliance issues, which would seem to argue for rapid consideration rather than wait for months or perhaps more than a year for clarification.What does he have on them? It's clear he has nothing but disdain for the Supreme Court.
This should be addressed IMMEDIATELY (the illegal unconstitutional recess appointments,) it's a matter of utmost importance.
Putting it off for a year is putting it off until Obama is out of office.
Because they were not in recess.
Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Review Board were when HE said Congress was in recess, not when Congress formally recessed. He appointed people under the recess rule when Congress has just met, but hadn’t approved who he wanted in time to make rulings for various union disputes.
Simple, when Obama made his “recess” appointments, Congress was not in recess.
But, but 0bama is a Constitutional Scholar! Why wouldn’t he know better than to try to do Unconstitutional things?
Bwaaa-Haa-Haa!!!! I totally crack myself UP...
To pick up this constitutionally arcane and politically laden issue suggests to me the Supremes are inclined to narrow if not outright eliminate the power grab of the executive branch through recess appointments
Recess appointments are "fine" for any president whenever our national legislature is really in recess.
Clearly, that was not the case here...
Yep, I’m sure they’ve got something good on him or they’re paying him some serious stimulus cash. We can only guess but it must be good.
Because the Senate was in recess when those recess appointments were made. Obama made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and claimed for himself the power to declare when the Senate was or was not in session.
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.