Posted on 06/26/2014 7:48:27 AM PDT by dware
The US Supreme Court today limited a president's power to make recess appointments when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties, scaling back a presidential authority as old as the republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Yeh like Obama cares about the Supreme Court. He will do what he pleases.
Would be interesting, but I was thinking the same thing last year for the original ACA ruling. I was rather suprised it came out the way it did, and I think we'll probably see the same here. BTW, add me to your list?
Thanks!
But the big thing is allowing an atheist to speak. Since it is NOT a religion....kick it to the curb. I believe it's a 2 minute monologue. Just so wrong.
If Roberts is writing Hobby Lobby, expect a loss.
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session.”The Recess Appointments Clause was designed to enable the President to ensure the unfettered operation of the government during periods when the Senate was not in session and therefore unable to perform its advice and consent function.
The key phrase here is vacancies that may happen during the recess. The appointments at the NLRB were not as a result of a vacancy that arose during a recess, ie The secretary of state gets killed in a plane crash in the middle of a senate recess.
Maybe so..
But his appoitments and acts done by them will not have the force of law.
First because it involves an intrusion into Christian Peoples Principles and secondly, because "Conscientious Objector" is well founded historically.
Obama was warned very early on...
As we were...
The headline is misleading. Didn’t Obama illegally usurp Congress’ power when he appointed people when Congress was in Session? /rhetorical
Praying that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods are the trifecta to this session of SCOTUS!
You are right.
Everyone, including the legal experts, expected a 5-4 decision against the individual mandate in NFIB v. Sebelius. Roberts flipped at the last minute. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were so angry that they wouldn’t even speak to him for a little while, reportedly.
From your keyboard to God’s ear.
I don't blame them. I wouldn't either. =D
I think they are waiting until Monday so they can get out of town the next day to avoid the furor that their decision will cause. I think the ruling will go against Hobby Lobby, although the court may try to split the baby, so to speak, to make some kind of allowance for Hobby Lobby only, as I think they know Hobby Lobby may just go out of business rather than compromise their religious values, putting a lot of their workers out of jobs. But my gut feeling is the Hobby Lobby decision is not going to be in its favor.
Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t like the fact that this ruling is going to be on Monday. The two decisions today may have been a sop to the conservatives because the big one on Monday is going to go against us. I remember the Obamacare decision was on the last day also, so that Chief Justice Roberts could split for Europe to hide out after his controversial and hated by conservatives decision pro Obamacare.
You’re SO correct!
The main point is that the contraceptive mandate is not the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal. If people having them is so important, the gov’t can give them away. Not force objectors to do so.
My thought exactly. The tip off to me is the 9-0 rulings. The court is completely united in multiple decisions and uphold the Constitution? Too good to be true. Like you, I hope I’m wrong, but this smacks to me of providing cover. “What do you mean we don’t care about the Constitution? Look at these unanimous rulings upholding privacy and limited Presidential power! Heck, some of us are even friends with conservatives!”
Of course
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.