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.
How about reviewing the fraudulent BC while they’re at it?
Just for argument’s sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?
Already used SigInt intercepts to bully Roberts inti Obamacare...
Gisv I WONDER what will come of this...
“The case sets up a high-stakes Supreme Court fight between the other two branches of government.”
God a vast fortune is spent by the taxpayer in efforts to protect itself simply from its “three equal” branches of government.
This is truly sad and out of hand.
Excellent news.
President Obama made three so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) while the Senate was not in recess. These appointments were unprecedented—no other president has made recess appointments while the Senate was in session.
What difference does it make? He’ll just blackmail Roberts again.
All presidents have had the authority to make recess appointments when Congress is adjourned.
Obama did it while Congress was NOT adjourned.
Sounds like cowardice to me.
It's not whether recess appointments are acceptable.
It's about what constitutes a recess. The Senate never officially recessed, but Obama basically declared they were in recess and made the appointments.
Because Baraq made his while the Senate was not in recess. End of argument.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“What difference does it make? He’ll just blackmail Roberts again.”
Yup. His reply will always be “yes, master obama.”
You didn’t hear about what Obama did? He declared the senate to be in recess, when it wasn’t. Because only the senate can declare itself in recess. Obama declared it was, anyway, and appointed people he wanted. A lower federal court than SCOTUS already weighed in and said it was unconstitutional/illegal, but Obama blew off the ruling and those people still sit in their appointive jobs today.
Thanks for the clarification
I had forgotten the details.
Because they were made while Congress was in session (so not recess) and just called ‘recess appointments.’
Earlier recess appointments were made when congress was in actually in recess. Obama did it while congress was not in recess. In other words he appointed who he wanted outside the law and through down a challenge to the other branches to do something about it. If he wins this without repercussions, he is truly a dictator.
It’s about freaking time ... where are the other challenges to the unconstitutional actions of the Obama regime? the pace is glacial.
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.