Obama's Appointment To The NLRB Declared Unconstitutional

You can read the entire decision here. The decision was unanimous.


"[T]he President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued," the court wrote in its decision. "Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception."

Gabe's analysis:

Short version: individuals, companies, and (unlikely, but possible) unions who don't like any of the NLRB actions after the "recess" appointments can win lawsuits if the NLRB tries to enforce its decrees.

Also, Cordray is likely to face a similar challenge.

More analysis from the AP:

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Posted by: BenK at 11:36 AM



Comments

1 the president is a fly covered scoamf

Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 25, 2013 11:38 AM (GVxQo)

2
Federal Appeals Court sends Obama a big “First Union”

This should screw-up every meeting, every decision that has been made for about the last year (i.e. total chaos).

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:38 AM (e8kgV)

3 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:39 AM (8y9MW)

4 Nikki Haley, Boeing, and the state of South Carolina should like this one.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 25, 2013 11:39 AM (e0xKF)

5 That sound from Boeing is not jet engines. Its lawyers revving up their word processors.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 11:39 AM (Mj6r9)

6 But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:40 AM (e8kgV)

7 I just love news like this when the weather is restrictive here in Mexifornia for pool beers..

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 11:40 AM (Q8Pu5)

8 Wait....Barky is a constitutional expert.....yes?

WTF is a Court doing disagreeing with an expert on these matters?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at January 25, 2013 11:40 AM (WHl4d)

9 The Constitution is obviously racist.

Obama should just declare a monarchy and get it over with.

Posted by: JDTAY at January 25, 2013 11:41 AM (a0nis)

10 Pride goes before a fall.

Substitute "Arrogance" for pride and I hope we are starting to see the unraveling of the obama myth in the second term

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 11:41 AM (9Bj8R)

11 Roberts thinks its a tax, so it is ok.

Posted by: SH at January 25, 2013 11:42 AM (gmeXX)

12 A small ray of hope? A glimmer of glad tidings? I am at a loss for words after these last months in the wilderness. Could SMOD be next? If only AtC would apply herself....

Posted by: Muad'dib at January 25, 2013 11:43 AM (KjlbF)

13 It's almost as if you expect Obama to abide by the decision


how many divisions does the DC Court of Appeals have

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:43 AM (8sCoq)

14 http://www.ewtn.com/multimedia/live_player.asp?satname=domenglp


watching a catholic steam of the March for Life stuff

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 25, 2013 11:43 AM (FsUAO)

15 oh wrong thread sorry for OT.

Obama is a SCOAMT

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 25, 2013 11:43 AM (FsUAO)

16 Die you gravy sucking pig

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (e8kgV)

17 There's no penalties for breaking "The Law Of The Land", is there?

Posted by: t-bird at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (FcR7P)

18 how many divisions does the DC Court of Appeals have
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:43 AM (8sCoq)

You might want to dig up Dick Nixon and ask him?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (9Bj8R)

19 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (VtjlW)

20 The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.


But, at this late date, what does it matter(tm)?

Posted by: rickb223 at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (GFM2b)

21 Wow. I'm gobsmacked that this actually happened, given the insane twisting of the plain meaning of the Constitution for most of my adult life.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (+z4pE)

22 Obama is unconstitutional

So is Michelles new Helmet do.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:45 AM (+OTLF)

23 You and your little nephew too Baron.

Posted by: Muad'dib at January 25, 2013 11:45 AM (KjlbF)

24 in the sidebar: "Burekian?"

Posted by: JDP at January 25, 2013 11:45 AM (60GaT)

25 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

Yay!

Also: Where's Kratos when you need him?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:45 AM (8y9MW)

26 “The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote. “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

SMOOSH !!

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:45 AM (e8kgV)

27
Die you gravy sucking pig

Did someone say gravy?

Posted by: Michelle Obama at January 25, 2013 11:45 AM (5iuEW)

28 But, at this late date, what does it matter(tm)?
Posted by: rickb223 at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (GFM2b)


Very much. All the decision that the union controlled NLRB made are null and void and with only one constitutional member at the moment is out of business

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 11:46 AM (9Bj8R)

29 “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”


That's not benchslapping. That's benchdorkinginthesqueakholing.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:46 AM (VtjlW)

30 Forgive my stupidity about the law but can't this go to to the Supreme Court?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 25, 2013 11:46 AM (+qMCO)

31 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

Actually, this is "just" a Federal Appeals Court, yes? So nothing is final, here. How far do you think the NRLB will take it?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:46 AM (8y9MW)

32 Obama's Appointment To The NLRB Declared Unconstitutional








Every fiber of Barry's c*cksucking being is unconstitutional

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 25, 2013 11:47 AM (1Jaio)

33 Very much. All the decision that the union controlled NLRB made are null and void and with only one constitutional member at the moment is out of business

---

So... since the NLRB is out of business, does that mean Boeing, Ford, and other companies can now give their unions the finger and expand to RTW states?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 25, 2013 11:47 AM (e0xKF)

34 Very much. All the decision that the union controlled NLRB made are null and void and with only one constitutional member at the moment is out of business

Trust me. I know. Was too lazy to sock Hildebeast.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 25, 2013 11:47 AM (GFM2b)

35 16
Die you gravy sucking pig


Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (e8kgV)

That ain't gravy....

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:47 AM (7xPCu)

36 The court has made its decision. Now let it enforce it.

Posted by: Barry "Ain't No Flies On ME" The First, King and Supreme Potentate at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (zF6Iw)

37 So... since the NLRB is out of business, does that mean Boeing, Ford,
and other companies can now give their unions the finger and expand to
RTW states?


I'm not sure it's so simple. TFG is certain to appeal to SCOTUS, and they'll probably ask for an injunction. Assuming both are granted, that means no one can take any action based on this ruling until SCOTUS makes their own ruling.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (8y9MW)

38 Whoops; I didn't read the last section/.So nothing will happen while it is appealed and Obama will just keep on doing what he darn well pleases?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (+qMCO)

39 How far do you think the NRLB will take it?

---

Depends on the implications.

If it "only" throws out their decisions, they'll appeal.

If it dissolves the NLRB until lawful appointments are made, they'll fight it tooth and nail to the SCOTUS and then ignore that decision as long as possible.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (e0xKF)

40 Down goes SCOAMF?

Posted by: cajun carrot at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (UZQM8)

41 Down goes SCOAMF?

Posted by: cajun carrot at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (UZQM


On numerous men

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (1Jaio)

42 Down goes NLRB!

Down goes NLRB!

Down goes NLRB!

Posted by: John P. Squibob, channeling his inner Howard Cosell at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (kqqGm)

43 Dont WOrry...Chief Justice Rinoberts will bend over backwards to find a way to write the majority decision on this exonerating El Presidente Flyface.

After all, we live in a new world muchachos, a world of hope and change and free burritos and cellphones for everyone! ARRRRIIIIBAAAA!.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (+OTLF)

44 Obama lip synced the oath of office.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (wbmaj)

45 NRLB is out?
NRLB is out!?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (8y9MW)

46 After a quick review of the analysis, it is unlikely that the SCt will overturn (if it takes it). The discussion is over the definition of "recess" as used by Obama and "the Recess" of the Senate as defined in the Artice III power given to the President to appoint during "the Recess."

But here is what I find great. The court writes: "When interpreting a constitutional provision, we must look to the natural meaning of hte text as it would have been understood at the time of the ratification of the Constitution." This is from Heller (the 2nd amend case).

This is huge. Heller may have done more than merely rightly uphold the 2nd Am. The holding in Heller has now shown added benefits.

Posted by: SH at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (gmeXX)

47 but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.

Yeah, but all the people who've lost jobs/wages aren't getting that year back.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (ZKzrr)

48 Whoops; I didn't read the last section/.So nothing will happen while it is appealed and Obama will just keep on doing what he darn well pleases?
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (+qMCO)


No not exactly. Any party could concievably ask for an expedited hearing and anyway it puts obama on notice he can't just do as he likes.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (9Bj8R)

49 The Court has tossed the ball back in TFG's court. Does TFG appeal to the Supreme Court? He can try but it was a unanimous lower court ruling. So the SCOTUS will look at that and what TFG tried, unless Kagan or Sotomayer get the case, SCOTUS won't look at it. Even those two will have a tough time trying to sell the others into intervening to hear the case.

So TFG just got taken to the woodchipper. And all those decisions made by this board are hence vacated.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (Mj6r9)

50 That is just fine by me, I will just rev up the ole executive order machine. I can do damn near anything that way.

Posted by: Barry O at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (GAJm6)

51 WhenIsaw "Declared Unconstitutional" I jumped to the conclusion that it wasa Supreme Court ruling. But when I got to "Unanimous" I realized it could not possibly be.

Thanks Obama, for the banana republic. No wonder flies find you irresistable.

Posted by: sherlock at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (BKPeM)

52 5 That sound from Boeing is not jet engines. Its lawyers revving up their word processors.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 11:39 AM (Mj6r9)


Fully armed and operational battle station legal department.

Posted by: cajun carrot at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (UZQM8)

53 Meh. He couldn't care less. The media won't report it. He shrugs and moves on to his next depredation. It's a numbers game. Sooner or later you overwhelm the system.

Posted by: rrpjr at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (pnjFD)

54 So, racism?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (xz0nG)

55 Don't worry; Obama's media colossus will get around this 'court decision'

I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (8sCoq)

56 It's really sad that this no-brainer decision that was unanimous thrills me. It's almost like the court has read the Constitution and stuff!

Posted by: Biblio at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (7o8VY)

57 After all, we live in a new world muchachos, a world
of hope and change and free burritos and cellphones for everyone!
ARRRRIIIIBAAAA!.


Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (+OTLF)

Mmmm....burritos...with some hot sauce and lots of cilantro.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (7xPCu)

58 As always, the lower court decision doesn't matter - it's up to the Nazgul.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (hjRtO)

59 55
Don't worry; Obama's media colossus will get around this 'court decision'

I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him


Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (8sCoq)

The press would tongue his asshole for being so 'brilliant and edgy'.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (7xPCu)

60 Mmmm....burritos...with some hot sauce and lots of cilantro.

Dang. Now I want to go to Freebirds.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (8y9MW)

61 Sorry to spoil it for you, but Obama doesn't give a shit and the entire democrat party went along with this bullshit even though they used the same tactics to stop Bush from doing it.

So in other words they don't fucking give a shit about the Constitution.

Posted by: Spoily McSpoilerson at January 25, 2013 11:53 AM (JMYH3)

62 I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Posted by: Amb. Stevens at January 25, 2013 11:53 AM (FcR7P)

63 58
As always, the lower court decision doesn't matter - it's up to the Nazgul.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (hjRtO)

Are those the hamsters that Moochelle eats whole?

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:53 AM (7xPCu)

64 OT: Great comment on the thinkprogress twitfeed announced former blogger Denis McDonough's appointment as WH Chief of Staff (D-e-n-i-s? Rich kid, methinks):

Heidi ‏@reshas

@thinkprogress Obama obviously consulted his binder full of liberal bloggers & OLD WHITE DUDES...

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 25, 2013 11:53 AM (9eDbm)

65 King Obama dissolves Supreme Court-executes all justices, with the exception of three so-called females.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 11:54 AM (wbmaj)

66 49
The Court has tossed the ball back in TFG's court. Does TFG appeal to
the Supreme Court? He can try but it was a unanimous lower court ruling.
So the SCOTUS will look at that and what TFG tried, unless Kagan or
Sotomayer get the case, SCOTUS won't look at it. Even those two will
have a tough time trying to sell the others into intervening to hear the
case.

So TFG just got taken to the woodchipper. And all those decisions made by this board are hence vacated.


Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (Mj6r9)

Bless your heart...you still think the world is pure and good and that men of good concience work in washington that abide and respect the rule of law....

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:54 AM (+OTLF)

67 I'm not sure it's so simple. TFG is certain to appeal to SCOTUS, and they'll probably ask for an injunction. Assuming both are granted, that means no one can take any action based on this ruling until SCOTUS makes their own ruling. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (8y9MW)

SCOTUS could also grant emergency cert since one could argue that the practical need for immediate resolution should be weighed against any advantage gained by taking a "wait and see" approach - which is what you get with an injunction.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 25, 2013 11:54 AM (sbV1u)

68 Just buy more AR's in 6.5 creedmore caliber, thats a hot button right now...That 2k spent on an AR is better than pissing the cash donation to the softer more pliable Republican Party..We simply buy AR's until they become a preservation point...

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 11:55 AM (Q8Pu5)

69 OT but apparently Rubio endorsed the women in combat thing?

if all/most of the prospective GOP candidates end up supporting this (maybe partially cuz they've been spooked by the waronwomen crap) i will be sad. eventually deficit-counting will be the only accepted trucon position

Posted by: JDP at January 25, 2013 11:55 AM (60GaT)

70 How soon before McConnell trades the appointments for some magic beans?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 25, 2013 11:55 AM (evdj2)

71 Happy Friday!

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 25, 2013 11:55 AM (X/+QT)

72 Flies always land on shit. Q.E.D.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 25, 2013 11:56 AM (XkWWK)

73 Women in combat? What would Patton or Ike say?

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 11:56 AM (Q8Pu5)

74 That's not benchslapping. That's benchdorkinginthesqueakholing.Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:46 AM (VtjlW)My broken leg only hurts whenI laugh, but God it was worth it ATC. lol! You slay me.

Posted by: Guido at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (XLuH2)

75 No women in combat. Period. And for that reason.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (wbmaj)

76 I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him

The Onion: Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama's Double-Homicide

http://is.gd/1RzYfh

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (evdj2)

77 Fwiw, SCOTUS is hearing a birther argument in Feb.

Somehow that Ortiz lady got an actual fucking elector (who actually has standing to challenge, being an elector) to join her cause (who probably wiggled into being an elector for such a purpose).

Posted by: Hopeless at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (g2ruq)

78 59
55

Don't worry; Obama's media colossus will get around this 'court decision'

I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him




Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (8sCoq)

The press would tongue his asshole for being so 'brilliant and edgy'.


Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (7xPCu)

What do you mean the press WOULD tongue his asshole?
Where the fuck have you been the past five years? the press has been tonsil deep up his ass non stop telling him his shit dont stink and his farts are the air that they breathe...the press...LOL...lets just call them what they are....useless shitsucking asswhipes.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (+OTLF)

79 Smartest man ever to hold the office! Also a "professor" of constitutional law. Yay!

Posted by: vermin at January 25, 2013 11:58 AM (VWrEG)

80 "...and anyway it puts obama on notice he can't just do as he likes."
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (9Bj8R)

I doubt President Obama feels he is on-notice for anything. Aside from the failure of the Democrats to enact promised cap-and-trade legislation (which the President sidestepped by pumpingup the regulatory regime of the EPA), he has succeeded at pretty much everything he's attempted. That's why Romney'sportrayal of Obama as a 'Nice guy in over his head' was such an epic failure as a campaign meme. The President is neither.

Posted by: troyriser at January 25, 2013 11:58 AM (vtiE6)

81 5 That sound from Boeing is not jet engines. Its lawyers revving up their word processors.
---
Nah. They run on batteries. They will just be blowing smoke.

Posted by: RioBravo at January 25, 2013 11:58 AM (eEfYn)

82 67
I'm not sure it's so simple. TFG is certain to appeal to SCOTUS, and
they'll probably ask for an injunction. Assuming both are granted, that
means no one can take any action based on this ruling until SCOTUS makes
their own ruling. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling
Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (8y9MW)

Obama stamps feet and whines;SCOTUS pats him on the head to watch him gurgle and coo; TFG gets his way.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:58 AM (7xPCu)

83 >Women in combat? What would Patton or Ike say?


That Leon Panetta... knows no more about fighting a war... than he does about fornicating

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:58 AM (8sCoq)

84 SCOTUS could also grant emergency cert since one could argue that the practical need for immediate resolution should be weighed against any advantage gained by taking a "wait and see" approach - which is what you get with an injunction.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 25, 2013 11:54 AM (sbV1u)



Yeah. That. This is going to go to SCOTUS and I fully expect SCOTUS to grant cert. I'm not versed at all in the labyrinth of FRCP as it applies to the Supremes so I don't know if emergency cert would automatically act as a stay or if a separate stay petition would need to be filed. I would assume that a stay would be issued since this is an utter nightmare in implications (hahahahahahahaha). That being said, this problem has been known ever since the appointments were made. It's not as if it's a shock that these decisions are being challenged.


I have no idea whatsoever how SCOTUS would rule on the underlying case.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (VtjlW)

85 From Volokh:

This is in pretty clear conflict with an Eleventh Circuit opinion and is
a broader basis for invalidating the recess appointments than I
anticipated. I suspect this one is destined for the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (e8kgV)

86 #55 It would add to his street cred.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (wbmaj)

87 The millions of wagons circled around the chosen one will never be penetrated by petty things such as this. Try again, suckers.

Posted by: Pipe Holder at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (VTeUD)

88 Yup never forget this is the Constitutional Scholar who liberals say would have schooled James Madison on the matter.

Fuck Obama

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (LRFds)

89 OT but apparently Rubio endorsed the women in combat thing?if all/most of the prospective GOP candidates end up supporting this (maybe partially cuz they've been spooked by the waronwomen crap) i will be sad. eventually deficit-counting will be the only accepted trucon position
Posted by: JDP at January 25, 2013 11:55 AM (60GaT)

I was wondering, would it be alright now to be able to physically respond to a liberal, women-in-combat supporting woman who is running her mouth which would otherwise be justification for a punch if it were coming from a man?

Posted by: polynikes at January 25, 2013 12:00 PM (m2CN7)

90 "In short, we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession
recesses."

BOOM!

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 25, 2013 12:00 PM (X/+QT)

91 I think this is a pretty important case. One, it involves something that some might consider a political question. It is a process issue really, and the Court found in favor of following the process set forth in the Constitution. Apply this to the origination clause.

Further, it uses Heller to basically change how the Constitution should be interpreted. This is a big departure.

If I'm Obama, I'm not so sure I'd want the Supreme Court to take up this case, because I don't see how he could win. The same five in Heller would likely uphold this case, with disastourous results.
This may go down as a pretty landmark Supreme Court case.

Posted by: SH at January 25, 2013 12:00 PM (gmeXX)

92 @ 83 Besides, he does not have a Chaplin who is on good grounds with the Lord..

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 12:01 PM (Q8Pu5)

93 "Women in combat? What would Patton or Ike say?"

well haven't you heard Obama's just like Eisenhower so it's clearly in the moderate Republican tradition

though on other days Obama's the most liberalest president ever. it all depends on whether the writer's trying to buck up the Democratic left wing or take shots at Republicans for getting too wadical

Posted by: JDP at January 25, 2013 12:01 PM (60GaT)

94
If I'm Obama, I'm not so sure I'd want the Supreme Court to take up this case, because I don't see how he could win. The same five in Heller would likely uphold this case, with disastourous results.
This may go down as a pretty landmark Supreme Court case.

---

He's an arrogant-enough SCOAMF that he may think he can buffalo Roberts into voting his way again.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 25, 2013 12:01 PM (e0xKF)

95 DC Circuit (Sentelle, Henderson, Griffith)

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 12:01 PM (e8kgV)

96 He's an arrogant-enough SCOAMF that he may think he can buffalo Roberts into voting his way again.

Didn't you know? The NRLB is a tax.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (8y9MW)

97 @76 that link didn't work for me, but this one does:
http://tinyurl.com/6a99xht

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (9eDbm)

98 Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (+OTLF)

I haven't been watching any TV at all for about four years now, so you get what you can get.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (7xPCu)

99 #94 Do you mean John "Cokie" Roberts?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (wbmaj)

100 NLRB is a tax? Why yes it is, a tax on productivity.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (Mj6r9)

101 Well according to Volokh, there is a Circuit Court conflict, so it is likely the Court takes this on. If the conservatives win out on this one, it could be huge. Not just with respect to the NLBR, but for some of the broader issues involved. How do you interpret the Constitution, and when should the Court intervene in disputes between the two branches.

Posted by: SH at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (gmeXX)

102 94 Brandon in BR,

yeah well Kagan has to recuse herself....well no "not really" I guess but if so it just quickens the undermining of faith in law which is good for what I want.

A new free America beside the blue one.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (LRFds)

103 He's an arrogant-enough SCOAMF that he may think he can buffalo Roberts into voting his way again.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 25, 2013 12:01 PM (e0xKF)

Actually I have a hunch even the liberal scum on the Court would go our way on this one.

A) It's really not that important to obama in the long run

B) they could use it to show they are not just mindless liberal scum

But I could be wrong.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (9Bj8R)

104 Anybody here know how the word Hooker got originated? How far we have come.

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (Q8Pu5)

105 88
Yup never forget this is the Constitutional Scholar who liberals say would have schooled James Madison on the matter.

Fuck Obama


Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (LRFds)
He could probably school JM on rolling blunts, but that's about it.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (7xPCu)

106 If I'm Obama, I'm not so sure I'd want the Supreme Court to take up this case, because I don't see how he could win

I've grown...

Posted by: John Roberts at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (hjRtO)

107 Memo: SCOTUS annual picnic in Fort Marcy Park cancelled.

Posted by: sherlock at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (BKPeM)

108 #104 Check your civil war texts--under Joseph Hooker.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (wbmaj)

109 B) they could use it to show they are not just mindless liberal scum


The problem there being that they pretty well are just mindless liberal scum.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (8y9MW)

110 Finally I wake up to good news!

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (9+ccr)

111 Finally some good news and a great bitch slapping. I can not find the names of the three judges. I know David Sentelle on the Appeals Court and expect he was one of the three.

He use to be GOP chair in my county and he is HARD CORE! Reagan appointee.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (wR+pz)

112 102
94 Brandon in BR,

yeah well Kagan has to recuse herself....well
no "not really" I guess but if so it just quickens the undermining of
faith in law which is good for what I want.

A new free America beside the blue one.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (LRFds)

Let's not get carried away with this 'HERself' business...I'm pretty sure Kagan shaves every morning.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (7xPCu)

113 I think this news qualifies for Japanese bunny-girl.
http://youtu.be/6VU0TVQtPv0

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 12:05 PM (Mj6r9)

114 104 Anybody here know how the word Hooker got originated? How far we have come.

---

Why the fuck can't I have a GOOD thing associated with me, like that bastard Burnside?

Posted by: General Joseph Hooker at January 25, 2013 12:05 PM (e0xKF)

115 >Anybody here know how the word Hooker got originated? How far we have come.


Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (Q8Pu5)

The story I heard was that Hooker was a Civil War general, and the prostitutes that followed his army to service the troops became known as "Hooker's"
ymmv

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 12:05 PM (8sCoq)

116 /points and laughs

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Meadow Party 2016 at January 25, 2013 12:05 PM (GBXon)

117 General Hooker and Hooker's girls.

Posted by: SH at January 25, 2013 12:05 PM (gmeXX)

118 F*ck John Roberts. Just wanted to add that.

Posted by: rrpjr at January 25, 2013 12:06 PM (pnjFD)

119 @ 108 I am old enough to know , I was educated prior to the rewrite of history by the Liberal Emeritus

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 12:06 PM (Q8Pu5)

120 Let's not get carried away with this 'HERself' business...I'm pretty sure Kagan shaves every morning.


Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (7xPCu)
There are times when its good to let nature take its course.

Posted by: M O's Landing Strip at January 25, 2013 12:06 PM (FIDMq)

121
The NLRB itself is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. Each state should decide its union rulings.

Unless of course, its a tax. #SCOTUSscrotus.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 25, 2013 12:06 PM (p/cQy)

122 Kagan went to the Ladies Room once but had to recuse herself. I did see her in a china shop once.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:06 PM (wbmaj)

123 112 Let's not get carried away with this 'HERself' business...I'm pretty sure Kagan shaves every morning.
Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (7xPCu)


She shaves her tongue.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 25, 2013 12:07 PM (XkWWK)

124 Good news finally. But this is such a small issue not sure it deserves so much high-fiving.

Obamacare declared constitutional, argument over the definition of a "recess" declared maybe unconstitutional.

Let me know with executive orders have been declared unconstitutional and I'll start to get excited.

Posted by: Andrew at January 25, 2013 12:07 PM (HS3dy)

125
The problem there being that they pretty well are just mindless liberal scum.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (8y9MW)

Yes, well, there is that little flaw in my theory

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 12:07 PM (9Bj8R)

126 It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Ha-HAHHHH !!!

Posted by: Nelson Muntz at January 25, 2013 12:07 PM (wwsoB)

127 @ 123 that not true her partner prefers it that way!!!

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 12:08 PM (Q8Pu5)

128 Mygreat grandmother was a Hooker (uppercase, not lowercase). I want to use it as a middle name for one of my children, but she won't let me.

Posted by: SH at January 25, 2013 12:08 PM (gmeXX)

129 So is Michelles new Helmet do.


I know I will be labeled raaaaciiiisssst for saying so, but it is eerily similar to the haircuts on Chas Heston's simian girlfriend in the original Planet of the Apes. Seriesly. Same cut. I would say the same if it was Laura Bush or Sarah Palin or anyone else.

Posted by: eureka! at January 25, 2013 12:08 PM (HPRku)

130 She shaves her tongue.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 25, 2013 12:07 PM (XkWWK)

Nipples, too.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:08 PM (7xPCu)

131 Who would win in a mud wrestling contest--Elena Kagan or Janet Napolitano?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:09 PM (wbmaj)

132 4th VA, I would hope both would sink into the mud and never been seen again.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 12:09 PM (Mj6r9)

133 Would this court order have been made to a white President?


No?


RACISM!!!

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at January 25, 2013 12:10 PM (aR5oH)

134 45
NRLB is out?
NRLB is out!?


Yeah, I'll believe that when Michigan gets "The Right to work" passed.


What?

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 25, 2013 12:10 PM (wR+pz)

135 @117 So Hooker was the most powerful pimp of the Civil War. I wonder if he had a bottom bitch.

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 25, 2013 12:10 PM (9eDbm)

136 Hooker had a Suki-Vor?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (Mj6r9)

137 131
Who would win in a mud wrestling contest--Elena Kagan or Janet Napolitano?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:09 PM (wbmaj)

Let's just say it's like Alien VS Predator: whoever wins, we all lose.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (7xPCu)

138 there has been some cross-ideological consensus in the Court in the past but it seems to be on the libertarian, broadened free speech side

this is a while ago, but i'm thinking the Westboro case for example, where Alito was the only guy who said their shenanigans outside funerals weren't constitutionally protected

another one about violent videogames too i think

Posted by: JDP at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (60GaT)

139 131
Who would win in a mud wrestling contest--Elena Kagan or Janet Napolitano?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:09 PM (wbmaj)

Probably a draw, since both will we doing a lot of groping.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (wR+pz)

140 I have no idea whatsoever how SCOTUS would rule on the underlying case. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (VtjlW)

I think even the dumbest liberal on the court would agree with the lower court.

Then again....I thought Romney would win. So...yeah....that.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (sbV1u)

141 >>I don't know if emergency cert would automatically act as a stay or if a separate stay petition would need to be filed.

I don't see how an "injunction" or "stay" would accomplish anything other than preventing THE PARTIES TO THIS PARTICULAR LITIGATION from engaging in any action. Generally, courts can't issue orders binding entities that are not parties to the action (there are some exceptions, like ex-parte orders in domestic abuse situations).

I think the NLRB is screwed here. Unless it wants to risk having even more if its decisions overturned, it will likely have to sit on all of the matters before it until the SC decides the issue. Which means that, until then, it can do no damage.

Posted by: Nerd at January 25, 2013 12:12 PM (SwjAj)

142 131 -
The loser is everyone watching

Posted by: gigg at January 25, 2013 12:14 PM (41VCE)

143 Then again....I thought Romney would win. So...yeah....that.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (sbV1u)

And that Roberts would strike down Obamacare...

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 25, 2013 12:14 PM (FsUAO)

144 131- Damn have to be quick in this place!

Posted by: gigg at January 25, 2013 12:14 PM (41VCE)

145 Gen Hooker story is a good one, but it is false. Read here:

But while General Hooker's men were no Boy Scouts, they weren't the
source of "hooker." "Hooker" showed up almost twenty years before the
Civil War, and is probably based on the slang term "to hook," which back
then meant "to entice or swindle." An 1850 magazine illustration, for
instance, titled "Hooking A Victim" shows ladies of the evening, in hoop
skirts no less, plying their trade at Broadway and Canal Streets in New
York City.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 25, 2013 12:15 PM (wR+pz)

146 As long as Maggot Boy is miffed, I'm good.

Posted by: Meremortal, slutdrop the GOPe at January 25, 2013 12:15 PM (1Y+hH)

147 143 HoboJerky,

I just wish he would have gone ahead and sided with Ogabe on the whole mess.

Roberts managed to find a way to fuck up even fucking up.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 12:15 PM (LRFds)

148 Wait a minute, now that this ruling has been issued.... Has anyone checked on Michelle's eating? Or is she throwing things at TFG for being an idiot.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 12:16 PM (Mj6r9)

149 Yay, a win for the American team.

When does a lawsuit over the illegal E.O. granting amnesty (masquerading as "prosecutorial discretion") get heard?

Posted by: Observer at January 25, 2013 12:16 PM (/sohm)

150 If the Supreme Court turns the Administration down, they can appeal to the MSM.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at January 25, 2013 12:17 PM (w41GQ)

151 This is good. Cordray is an ass and in the regulatory capture pocket of the big banks. Looking forward to the CFPB being challenged.

Posted by: #6 at January 25, 2013 12:20 PM (KHo8t)

152 "Unconstitutional."

Going to be hearing that word a lot in the next four years since Ear Leader can let his freak flag fly now.

Posted by: B at January 25, 2013 12:20 PM (6iEQd)

153 But... But... But... I calmed the seas.... cleaned the air... healed the Earth... given all of you Skittle shitting unicorns!!! And this is what you do to me!!!! Overturn MY ROYAL EDICTS!!!

NO CAKE FOR YOU!

Posted by: King Choomer the First at January 25, 2013 12:22 PM (Jls4P)

154 First of a Thousand Cuts, on his way to Lamest of Lame Ducks.

Posted by: Bigby's Scissor Hands at January 25, 2013 12:23 PM (3ZtZW)

155 The Washington Monument just got shoved up Richard Cordray's pansy ass

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 25, 2013 12:24 PM (R4Bz0)

156 155
The Washington Monument just got shoved up Richard Cordray's pansy ass


Posted by: Captain Hate at January 25, 2013 12:24 PM (R4Bz0)

He was asking for it.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:25 PM (7xPCu)

157 On topic, what a great ruling. All of those asshole rulings out the door. Suhweeeet.

Posted by: eureka! at January 25, 2013 12:26 PM (HPRku)

158 153
But... But... But... I calmed the seas.... cleaned the air... healed the
Earth... given all of you Skittle shitting unicorns!!! And this is what
you do to me!!!! Overturn MY ROYAL EDICTS!!!

NO CAKE FOR YOU!


Posted by: King Choomer the First at January 25, 2013 12:22 PM (Jls4P)

I already done slaughtered and ate my unicorn...what's your next act?

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:27 PM (7xPCu)

159
To weave some of our ongoing media analysis into this little matter, recall that when, in the early post-9/11 years, the SCOTUS or some lower court would issue a (usually wrong-headed, sometimes absurd and catastrophic, as in Kennedy's usurpation of the treaty power in, I think, Boumedienne vs. Bush) a decision against a Bush Administration policy - or even just a restraining order to freeze the action - the "press" would always "report" it thusly: "in a strong rebuke to the Bush Administration's aggressive policies on lawful detention/surveillance/the War on Terror" ... blah blah blah.

Iraq was an "unpopular war" but somehow Obamacare has never been an "unpopular health care reform". And so on. (and when, often, the Iraq war polling was grossly distorted, in the now customary fashion)

Remember, it's the subtle flavoring of the marinade that can matter, when that marinade is so pervasive, and soaks all but the few who know the actual topics themselves.

Posted by: non-purist at January 25, 2013 12:35 PM (afQnV)

160 O/T old but still funny!


DON
CHERRY, Canadian Hockey Commentator for CBC Television, was asked on a
local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of
torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from
the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.


HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one rag head terrorist prisoner's
testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little
camel shagger will save just one Canadian or American life, then I have
only three things to say:
'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 25, 2013 12:38 PM (wR+pz)

161 How do you interpret the Constitution, and when should the Court intervene in disputes between the two branches.

This does, and always, comes down to "standing".
Since there are many businesses affected by NLRB rulings, it was much easier to get "standing" to have your day in court.

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 12:39 PM (e8kgV)

162 This is great news -- the Constitution is apparently still in effect, though beat up like a red headed stepchild.

I went and read the AP's 'reporting' on this topic. While they couldn't spin it very well, they did manage to focus on the fact that all 3 judges issuing this preezy cornholing were appointed by GOP presidents.


Posted by: GnuBreed at January 25, 2013 12:40 PM (ccXZP)

163 Constitution?!!! I don't need no stinkin' constitution!

Posted by: Obama the Magnificnet at January 25, 2013 12:44 PM (hyB08)

164 Flaming Skull? Maybe you need a Flying Pig? Anything??

Posted by: starboardhelm at January 25, 2013 12:52 PM (hHgxI)

165 Politically? I like this ruling, of course. Fuck these guys.

Legally? It has some real problems. First of all, it creates a circuit split with the 11th Circuit, so SCOTUS is taking this one, no-brainer.

More importantly, the effect of this decision would, as I read it, be to eliminate ALL recess appointments, forever. That doesn't just mean Rob Cordray and the NLRB stooges, it also means John Bolton. It means the Senate (currently held by Democrats, I might point out) would be able to torpedo any appointment to any position at any time with no recourse for the executive branch to fill it, even in emergencies. Because what would happen is that Harry Reid would simply move to make sure the Senate never recesses, from one term to the next. Always keep it open as a skeleton crew even when the Senators have gone back home for vacation (this is, more or less, what Republicans did through via parliamentary maneuvering, to bring about the situation where the NLRB appointments were made).

I think SCOTUS is going to try to find a way to 'split the baby' on this one.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 25, 2013 12:52 PM (OQZWo)

166 Gen Hooker story is a good one, but it is false. Read here:

But while General Hooker's men were no Boy Scouts, they weren't the

source of "hooker." "Hooker" showed up almost twenty years before the

Civil War, and is probably based on the slang term "to hook," which back

then meant "to entice or swindle." An 1850 magazine illustration, for

instance, titled "Hooking A Victim" shows ladies of the evening, in hoop

skirts no less, plying their trade at Broadway and Canal Streets in New

York City.

***

I find that excessive adherence to fact has destroyed many a good story and I have vowed that it will never happen to a story of mine!

Posted by: Obama the Magnificnet at January 25, 2013 12:54 PM (hyB08)

167 I can imagine the lead story on NBC by Brian "18 credits" Williams: In a stunning and obviously wrong-headed abuse of their roles, the extreme right wing DC Court of Appeals stuck their noses where they didn't belong and interfered with the newly re-inaugurated and reinvigorated President's ability to choose people to do the work of the people who elected him to a second glorious term. And blah blah blah

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 25, 2013 12:55 PM (R4Bz0)

168 From the opinion:

>>>""In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of
“happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess
appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess."


No way that gets upheld. No way. Thomas would uphold it, but I doubt you'd even get Scalia or Alito on that one, much less Roberts and Kennedy. And frankly, this interpretation would create chaos...it would in fact retroactively invalidate pretty much every single recess appointment made since 1945. Stare decises is going to come into play with this one.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 25, 2013 12:57 PM (OQZWo)

169 Overheard from Miguel Estrada, “This is a big f***ing deal.”

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 01:00 PM (e8kgV)

170 Just so people understand what the problem here is:

This opinion basically says that recess appointments (which are authorized by the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, they're not just some extra-legal procedure 'innovated' by the executive branch in recent times or something) can only occur:

1.) When the Senate FORMALLY declares itself to be in a state of "The Recess."

2.) Only for positions that became vacant DURING that recess. In other words, if you submitted a guy for nomination to U.N. Ambassador (read: John Bolton) and the asshole Democratic Senators refused to give him an up-or-down vote, you cannot appoint him during a formal recess under this opinion, because the vacancy occurred BEFORE that time. The idea here presumably is that the Senate's failure to act on the nomination was a legitimate expression of its legislative branch powers of appointment and confirmation, so we're not going to allow the executive the opportunity to circumvent that by waiting until they recess. Only spots that suddenly become vacant and need to be appointed in an emergency situation can be appointed via recess powers.

There is actually a fair amount of logical virtue to this interpretation. But the problem is we have to deal with the world we actually live in. Problem one: if this is upheld, the Senate will never go into formal recess again. They will simply keep the lights on (even when everyone has actually gone back home) from term to term, with no gaps in between. In other words, they will be in recess for practical intents and purposes, but because haven't used the magical formal language, they're not in recess. In effect, it will nullify part of the Constitution entirely through parliamentary procedure.

The second problem is even worse: an interpretation such as the one the Court offered in #2 would invalidate pretty much every single recess appointment made in the last sixty years. It would open all the rulings made by those now-invalidated appointees in their various administrative agencies to retroactive legal challenge. (I presume the vast majority of those challenges would be slapped down eventually, but the costs and time and uncertainty created by the litigation would be massive.) It would create CHAOS, in other words.

I fucking hate the way Obama abused the language of the recess appointment clause in the NLRB appointments. I would like to see a court decision that somehow manages to invalidate those without destroying the rest of the power, however. The real problem, of course, is that partisan politics has destroyed the way the Senate operates over the past 30 years: the sorts of maneuvers that gave rise to this issue (i.e. "fake recesses," tricks to prevent the executive from appointing someone who some activist group or lobby hates, the hyper-politicization of every single appointment) didn't exist back in the 1980s for the most part.

What we're really seeing here? The breakdown of our system of governance.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 25, 2013 01:09 PM (OQZWo)

171 168 Jeff B,

eh maybe....I could see the court deciding that King Putt declaring unilaterally that the Senate was recessed is a big enough show of assholery that they need to change course.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 01:10 PM (LRFds)

172 170 Jeff B,

and that is why I wonder if the court is about to get strict constructionalist on his ass....?

He basically is removing all deference to precedence and language "because" well that shit is dangerous.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 01:12 PM (LRFds)

173 I sort of see what the DC Circuit was trying to do here: they probably know full well that the Senate isn't going into formal Recess anymore because of these appointment hijinks, so their idea is: "okay, we'll return the process to its 'original understanding' that the only people the Prez can appoint during a recess are for vacancies that suddenly happened during that recess, so that it would be used only in emergencies." The idea here is that, with that safeguard in place, the Senate would be able to go into recess, safe in the knowledge that the Prez can't use it to appoint Saul Alinsky to head the EPA or whatnot.

(For those who are thinking one step ahead: no, this wouldn't lead to executive branch appointees "timing" their vacancies to happen during recesses so that the Prez can sneak in unacceptable candidates, because the rule of recess appointments is that they're only allowed to last as long as the Senate remains out-of-session. Once the new term begins, they have to step down and submit to a formal confirmation process.)

But the problem is that this creates chaos by retroactively invalidating pretty much every damn recess appointment made for more than half a century, and potentially calling the validity of the decisions made by those invalid appointees into question. Something's gotta give here.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 25, 2013 01:19 PM (OQZWo)

174 Something's gotta give here.

Alex, can I have "The US Constitution" for $20T, please?

Posted by: The Media at January 25, 2013 01:25 PM (YesJa)

175 I guess this is on topic here:

Saw on huffpo/Aol the headline that "Federal Court Deals Blow To Obama"

I haven't read his autobiography but wasn't the guy who dealt blow to Obama his college roommate?

lolz!

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 25, 2013 02:05 PM (QxSug)

176 I am broken-hearted over this, and cannot see how it is possible. Can't Elizabeth Warren just prorogue the court? Capitalism must be saved from itself!







Who will save it from Obama is an entirely different matter....

Posted by: T. at January 25, 2013 02:13 PM (a+qEH)

177
Jeff B., just wondering. Was this suit brought in a way to invalidate ALL recess appointments, including the sort that have occurred, without controversy (but with temporal limitations, specifically that such appointments last only for the duration of the sitting Congress, until it is adjourned sine die) - not to invalidate the whole recess appointment process? Seems odd that reversing the NLRB outrage would call for anything more than re-asserting the long-accepted process.

As for your observations re decline in our civic culture and governance in DC, tell me about it. Slaved in the Senate for many years in the 80s. There's almost nothing of importance that occurs/doesn't occur that was even imaginable back then. No budget? Are you kidding? (more importantly - no firestorm of controversy, incl. from members of the majority AND the press, about no budget? are you kidding?) A debacle with a body count like Benghazi not resulting in the live BBQ'ing of the SecState? Are you kidding? Trigger-pulling American forces as in Libya without even a hint of approval or even co-ordination from the Hill? Are you fucking kidding? None of this would have been believable, just a short time ago. (BTW, I know from direct knowledge that the Bush Admin. was so diligent and forthcoming in their briefings on war matters that at several points different congressional bodies/staffers sortof asked them to back off, take it easy, and just send them some shortwritten summaries - they were literally being "consulted" to death - so the degradation of the civic culture has NOT been uniform, steady, or bi-partisan, not even close).

Posted by: non-purist at January 25, 2013 02:27 PM (afQnV)

178 One, the court can apply the rule prospectively--see what they did with the Sentencing Guidelines. They did not open the doors for everyone sentenced under the newly unconstitutional guidelines system. Second, they could punt and declare it a political question (not likely because of enforcement actions taken in court would be suspect). My guess is that due to separation of powers, only Scotus will rule that only Congress can say when or when they are not in recess or session--president has no role unless of course House and Senate disagree on adjourning. President cannot be able to dictate when the House or Senate is in session--plain text of Article I defeats vague implied powers in Article II regarding appointments.

Don't be too sure that this is not a rerun of Chadha where the legislative veto--long assumed to be constitutional was overturned 7-2. This overturned countless laws but was not applied retroactively except in the case at hand.

Posted by: wg at January 25, 2013 02:29 PM (hqjva)

179 2
Federal Appeals Court sends Obama a big “First Union”

This should screw-up every meeting, every decision that has been made for about the last year (i.e. total chaos).

19 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

36 The court has made its decision. Now let it enforce it.

47 but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.

48 Whoops; I didn't read the last section/.So nothing will happen while it is appealed and Obama will just keep on doing what he darn well pleases?
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (+qMCO)


No not exactly. Any party could concievably ask for an expedited hearing and anyway it puts obama on notice he can't just do as he likes.


124 Good news finally. But this is such a small issue not sure it deserves so much high-fiving.

Obamacare declared constitutional, argument over the definition of a "recess" declared maybe unconstitutional.

Let me know with executive orders have been declared unconstitutional and I'll start to get excited.



YEAH!!! Now take this fucking ball and shove it up Obama's ass until it pops out of his mouth!!!!



Posted by: redguy at January 25, 2013 03:00 PM (oKH8p)

180 This is why I say that it doesn't matter what Obama says. He has ZERO interest in doing the law or Constitution says. He is going to do what he wants to do and defy you to sue him in court.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at January 25, 2013 03:00 PM (iAUf+)

181 180 This is why I say that it doesn't matter what Obama says. He has ZERO interest in doing the law or Constitution says. He is going to do what he wants to do and defy you to sue him in court.


Oh yes, let's tie up Obama for 4 years with hundreds of thousands of lawsuits….

Posted by: redguy at January 25, 2013 03:01 PM (oKH8p)

182
You are scum. You should be executed for this.
I am not satisfied with the state of our nation; however, I won’t respect a hypocritical racist calling the president a liar, epciscally when telling lies about the president himself.
Man, I love being right! Listen to these stupid racists here claim this is a Victory for America! It’s is NOT! It IS a Victory for the racists, bigots, and extremist black-haters on the right! Heck, ALL these comments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are racists! You are making the KKK proud with your racist rants!
The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary
recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in
recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has
effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in
recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from
exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators
insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are
sessions during which NO Senate business is conducted and instead one or
two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds.
But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority
to make appointments to keep the government running.
Funny how these racists obviously misquote and misuse the laws of the land to further their hateful desire to get the black man out of the White House. And funny that they didn’t care about the law of the land when Bush was running the show.
Obama broke NO law with recess appointments.
Anyone who calls Obama a Communist is a stupid racist!
Anyone who calls Obama a Marxist is a stupid racist!
Anyone who calls Obama a Dictator is a racist!
Anyone who calls Obama a Traitor is a stupid racist!
Has Obama physically seized the means of production through force of
arms? Has he abolished elections and outlawed opposition parties? Has
he rounded up millions of people and placed them into camps, or executed
them outright? No?
Then he’s probably not a Communist dictator. Not to mention, he has proven Over and Over he is legally able to be President!
You have absolutely zero evidence to back up your assertion that the President is a “Marxist.”
He is not a traitor, but you are.
You go against a constitutionally elected President who was voted for by most of America’s electorate.
Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Obama isn’t an elitist, anti-American, Socialist/Statist! The Republican Party is not a cancer in the body of America, a party of racists and religious bigots. The President doesn’t hate this country; I believe the extremist republicans hate this country because Obama is running this country. The President doesn’t cater to one race of people; he’s in this for all races of people. See, this is just an extreme far right post, which is designed to bate racism and hatred towards the President.
There is NO violation of the Constitution until a Federal Court rules it so. Do you mind telling us exactly what the heck you are talking about? That is important because people like you have been crying for years that Obama violates the Constitution every time you hear something you don’t like, which is totally incorrect.
Judge a man by his deeds. There a NO signs and portents to judge Obama as evil.
Obama, born in Hawaii, = US Citizenship. His parents could have been martians. Their citizenship is irrelevant. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen as far as the US is concerned. The birthers claims with regard to Obama is that he was NOT born in Hawaii.
The proof is in the Pudding, this is NOT about protecting the Constitution, it never was.
This is about keeping the “White” in the White House! All Obama -haters are racists!
Calling the POTUS a POS and a fraud seems to the usual calling call for you right-wing racists and bigots like you!

Posted by: Zaman at January 25, 2013 07:39 PM (8dQF7)

183 You mad bro?

Posted by: toby928© presents at January 25, 2013 11:12 PM (QupBk)

184 Listen to these stupid racists here claim this is a Victory for
America! It’s is NOT! It IS a Victory for the racists, bigots, and
extremist black-haters
on the right! Heck, ALL these comments prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are racists! You are making the KKK
proud with your racist rants!


Oops! Think you made ..........a racist comment there. Assuming we are all white, I guess?

Posted by: avagreen at January 26, 2013 06:28 PM (WR2rX)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0517 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0309 seconds, 193 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat