FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/26/2014 9:25:49 AM PDT by Marie
Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. There’s only one problem.
The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments.
Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesn’t get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does.
This is the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution’s recess appointment clause has been challenged, as no former president has attempted to usurp powers as wannabe dictator, Barack Obama.
The respondent in the case was Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola distributor, who claimed that the NLRB lacked a quorum because three of the five Board members had been invalidly appointed by Obama. Canning was being forced by the NLRB into entering a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.
Reid’s response was predictable. Go nuclear for all appointments....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3172625/posts
The Hero of Benghazi seems to be having some difficulty.
Better put some ice on that Odungo.
Expect the Dems to somehow create extended recesses under the next GOP Prez.
PLENTY of time to get THIS out .... UNSPUN.
So when does his trial start? Or is the constitution not supposed to protect us from tyrants?
That man is such a jerk.
I think you mean the reverse of that, absence of a recess results in absence of power to recess appoint.
The DEMs started the practice of phony Congressional session, so the books look as though Congress is in session (not in recess) when it is actually not in session. They'd keep two people in DC, one to sit in the high chair, and one to open and close the session. I think the average time of being in session was about 30 seconds.
SCOTUS punted this too. The president and Congress have been allowing unconstitutional recess appointments for over a hundred years. SCOTUS says, well, if it's been going on that long, "poof," it's constitutional.
Does this mean those he illegally “appointed” will be removed? I can’t wait to see that not happen.
We have *got* to take everything this election. Unless we get back the Senate, they’ll never impeach.
On the other hand... Uncle Joe...
ug.
9-0 on ANYTHING is pretty astonishing!
If he chooses wrong on something that gets ruled 9-0, then we cannot trust his judgment on what a “smidgen” of corruption is.
Obama could take a cue from President Lincoln or President Jackson and just IGNORE the US Supreme Court ... :-) ...
Something tells me even the libs on the court are starting to fear a dictatorship and the inevitable response from the People.
I think it takes 2/3 of the senate to remove the hero of Benghazi.
But the majority would be nice if just to tell Reid to sit down.
They’re contemplating what might happen with this power if a republican is elected president in a few years.
I would assume that they all have to go.See if the republicans force the issue or not,may be Boner will want to cry about it first.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.