Posted on 01/11/2014 7:49:18 AM PST by Kaslin
In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Noel Canning versus the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This case arose when President Obama made several so-called recess appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012 when the Senate was not formally in recess. This landmark case is expected to determine how much leeway the President has to make appointments without Senate confirmation, and more significantly, it will have serious implications on the broader powers of the presidency itself and the system of checks and balances.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit already correctly ruled that these appointments were unconstitutional. The most significant reason President Obama’s actions are inconsistent with the law is the NLRB “recess” appointments were made when the U.S. Senate was in continuous “pro forma” sessions, meaning that the Senate was not actually in recess. The President merely declared that Senate was in recess and arrogated himself the authority to make the appointments.
The court’s findings show that President Obama has set a very dangerous precedent by completely bypassing the traditional nomination process and circumventing the Senate’s constitutional authority to advise and consent. The framers never intended for any president to have the unilateral power to appoint people to high-level positions except during a legitimate recess; hence, the U.S. Constitution specifically included a clause that gave the Senate the power to give its "advice and consent" to presidential appointments. As many of our county’s students learn, the framers created a system of checks and balances, for the purpose of avoiding presidential overreach.
President Obama effectively circumvented the Senate’s advice and consent, preventing any due process from taking place. In fact, two nominees failed to complete a Senate committee’s basic questionnaire that would have disclosed potential conflicts of interest, let alone the scrutiny of testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. This vetting should and quite possibly would have disqualified Obama’s nominees from taking office in the first place.
Then-nominees and now-General Counsel Richard Griffin and Board Member Sharon Block, Obama’s two recess appointments in question, have a dubious past of advocacy on behalf of the unions and in some instances a much more sordid history. Most notably, Richard Griffin was previously a lawyer for one of the country’s largest labor unions and according to The Wall Street Journal was “named as a defendant in a federal racketeering lawsuit that claims he was complicit in covering up a union embezzlement.” On the other hand, Sharon Block worked as a labor counsel for one of organized labor's most partisan supporters and has routinely sided with them in matters before the Board. Griffin and Block’s close ties to Big Labor is categorically defined as a conflict of interest at a federal agency where the government is supposed to act as an impartial arbiter between businesses and unions.
When the National Labor Relations Board was first constituted by Congress, George Meany, the former president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), was vociferously against the appointment of labor lawyers who had represented either unions or employers because he believed that they would not be able to act neutrally.
Times have changed and President Obama is completely beholden to his union boss friends, which ultimately led him down this disasterous path, including nominating someone to the Board who came directly from organized labor. The President, a former constitutional law professor, knows better and his actions are those of someone exhibiting willful ignorance. More significantly it is a breach and overstep of presidential powers that our Founding Fathers sought to protect our country from.
When outside influences and special interest groups are able to successfully infiltrate the government and exert their influence over elected officials in a quest to seek preferential labor policies, it is bad for business and bad for our country. While the Supreme Court should certainly strike down Obama’s appointments as unconstitutional, it is not enough. Congress must go a step further, and take it upon itself to reform the NLRB, so that the Board and its members cannot carry the water of the President’s political donors as opposed to functioning as a reputable, taxpayer-funded independent agency, which it falsely claims to be.
No surprises here. I believe we all know how this will turn out.
Fine, but the fact that this kind of thing is even an issue shows that we are now a third world banana republic, just with more stuff on the shelves.
Please God. Restore the intelligence, fair-mindedness, common sense, love for country that once not that long ago lived within the spirit, sense of purpsose that was the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
When one black-robed renegade in Utah “legalized” same-sex marriage, it was immediately effected before a final SCOTUS decision, and now the Feds say they will recognize those “marriages.”
But when every court short of SCOTUS rules these appointments unconstitutional, the illegal Obamabots are allowed to remain in place till SCOTUS acts, and continue to destroy the nation.
The lesson? Whatever the left wants is what we get. Common sense, decency and integrity are all dead in our legal system.
Two years later and the damage is already done.
Glad to see the SCOTUS on top of things.
They should just take down their lie above the Court:
“Equal under the Law”.
It is a lie - and never again will have been true in the USA.
What will happen to decisions made during the time the illegal appointees were in office?
Repeal?
Banana Republic States of America
Nothing like speedy justice.
Roberts will decide “it’s a tax.”
According to the law...nevermind, jon boi, will blow this one off and call it a tax, or a fine or a Thursday, it doesn’t matter, “At this point, what difference does it make?”.
"Mess wit me and I thump ya wid dese tings, America!
Big deal, it got to SCOTUS. I would imagine that the court will find against the appointment so as to maintain its false veneer of credibility and credibility in the current system overall. But this decision won’t matter, because we know that zero will march on undeterred. And we know that the regime will suffer absolutely no adverse consequence if the court goes against him anyways.
I think that it would be more interesting if the court agreed with the regime. That would engender even more contempt of these corrupt federal institutions which is exactly what they deserve. So now we see zero routinely breaking the law, NSA officials lying to congress w/o consequence; why should the people behave any differently? If this is not the perfect justification for mass civil disobedience, I don’t know what is.
I didn’t know this was a discussion on POTUS...er...
SCOTUS is afraid to piss off Der Fuhrer. I am counting on them to do absolutely nothing.
YEP and I am sure Obama will threaten Roberts again unless he votes a certain way....
As with most other Freepers here, I have no confidence in the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution. It will apply the rubber stamp 0bama expects of the good little black-robed monkey boys and girls they are. The Constitution is dead, as the current president recognizes no restraint on his power as against the other branches of government, the states, or the people.
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.