[Red Badger]

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying the court ignored the fact that since the law governing vacancies was adopted in 1998, more than 100 people have served in acting roles while the U.S. Senate considered their nominations for permanent jobs

Justices ignored the fact that just because it has been done in the past doesn't make it right...............

[\/\/ayne]

If Ruth Ginsburg lost it was a good decision.

[freedumb2003]

>>In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said that under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a person cannot serve as the acting head of a federal agency once the president nominates him or her to permanently serve in the role if it is a position that requires U.S. Senate confirmation.

<<

At first I thought this was just procedural.

Then I realized obozo was using it to make PERMANENT appointment by doing a temporary one and making it permanent, thus bypassing the Senate.

Good ruling.

[struggle]

Abolish the NLRB and be done with it.

[Michael.SF.]

Well, sure glad they stopped Obama on this one. Just think of all the damage that could have been done had they not acted so quickly.

/s

[R_Kangel]

Although the court did right by overturning the decision .... I believe they are trying to reverse the precedents that Obama created in the event that Trump might actually use those precedents as tools to enact his own wishes.

[WENDLE]

Just do recess appointments as clearly allowed in the constitution. The NLRB case was about recess appointments where there was no recess. Obama was a dictator with no regard for any law except environmental wacko laws.

[Sacajaweau]

They make this sound like it is a Trump Case....when in fact it was Obama who ignored the law.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Oldeconomybuyer. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

”… in a case involving an appointment to the National Labor Relations Board [emphasis added]."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate labor issues. Previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had reflected this as evidenced by the following excerpts.

• "State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So the Supreme Court’s decision is helping to unconstitutionally expand the fed’s constitutionally limited powers by recognizing the unconstitutional NLRB imo.

Note that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had warned patriots to be on their guard against “silent encroachments” of power by the corrupt feds.

• ”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)

• ”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

• ”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.