Fed Court: Obama Broke the Law

[BDKJMU]

"Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.
The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.

When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham.

The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.

"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."

Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.

The Justice Department hinted that the administration would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which was rendered by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.

The court acknowledged that the ruling conflicts with what some other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.
"I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers," said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond. "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."

The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate case.

Carney insisted the court's ruling affects only a single case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.

The case challenging the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a Washington state bottling company that claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed.

Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic - as Democrats had done in the past - specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

The three-judge panel flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed that the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, 2012, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."

If the ruling stands, it would invalidate more than 600 board decisions issued over the past year. 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.

Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

All three vacancies on the labor board had been open for months before Obama acted to fill them.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa called the ruling "a radical departure from precedent" and argued that Obama had no choice but to act.

"Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board's legal authority to act," Harkin said.

If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130126/DA41HUAO0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Can't believe no one has talked about this yet. It would appear to be, as Biden would day, a big fucking deal.

[dbackjon]

If you read the ruling, and weren't so concerned about to trying to burn Obama on a cross, you would realize this one courts rulings means the Majority of recess appointments by Reagan and Bush were also unconstitutional

[Col Hogan]

If you read the ruling, and weren't so concerned about to trying to burn Obama on a cross, you would realize this one courts rulings means the Majority of recess appointments by Reagan and Bush were also unconstitutional

Wrong...but you want to elevate 0bama to saint status, so you can't see just how wrong you are...

[houndawg]

Our conk brothers are no longer singing the praises of a strong executive branch.

[Col Hogan]

Our conk brothers are no longer singing the praises of a strong executive branch.

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

[CID1990]

Our conk brothers are no longer singing the praises of a strong executive branch.

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

I'm glad you lumped those two groups together, Col. A lot of people (especially Democrats) neither know nor acknowledge the history of the neoconservative movement.

[Col Hogan]

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

I'm glad you lumped those two groups together, Col. A lot of people (especially Democrats) neither know nor acknowledge the history of the neoconservative movement.

It's the acknowledge part...they refuse to accept that Bush is the fruit of their loins...

[houndawg]

Our conk brothers are no longer singing the praises of a strong executive branch.

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

There was no such thing as a "neo-con" when I was sleeping through Civics 101.

[dbackjon]

If you read the ruling, and weren't so concerned about to trying to burn Obama on a cross, you would realize this one courts rulings means the Majority of recess appointments by Reagan and Bush were also unconstitutional

Wrong...but you want to elevate 0bama to saint status, so you can't see just how wrong you are...

NO, I am 100% correct. The court ruled very broadly that unless 1) the vacancy occured during an intersessional recess, and 2) the appointment happened during the same type of recess, it was unconstitutional.

Bush/Reagan/Clinton did dozens of these types of appointments that the court has ruled unconstitutional.

FAIL on Conk spin

[dbackjon]

I'm glad you lumped those two groups together, Col. A lot of people (especially Democrats) neither know nor acknowledge the history of the neoconservative movement.

It's the acknowledge part...they refuse to accept that Bush is the fruit of their loins...

Wow - you could right history for the Soviet Union.

Bush was a product of the Conservative movement - Dems have zero to do with him.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Our conk brothers are no longer singing the praises of a strong executive branch.

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

Yeah... except that Conk Presidents have - in the last 40 years presided over remarkable expansions of the unitary executive... Nixon, Reagan, W...

It's nice to talk about a civics book - now let's snap back to reality. Conks care about "checking the executive" only when they aren't the executive...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

This was always a gambit - but I don't blame POTUS for trying... the Senate was "held open in pro-forma sessions" to purposely obstruct the appointment of anyone by recess appointment... which seems a rather obvious admission that the GOP minority was purposely obstructing ALL appointments. (They blocked even Motions to Adjourn with filibuster threats)

Tempest - meet teapot.

[DSUrocks07]

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

Yeah... except that Conk Presidents have - in the last 40 years presided over remarkable expansions of the unitary executive... Nixon, Reagan, W...

It's nice to talk about a civics book - now let's snap back to reality. Conks care about "checking the executive" only when they aren't the executive...

Can say the same about donks too...

[kalm]

I'm glad you lumped those two groups together, Col. A lot of people (especially Democrats) neither know nor acknowledge the history of the neoconservative movement.

It's the acknowledge part...they refuse to accept that Bush is the fruit of their loins...

Dammitt, you started down a good path, then took a left turn at wing nut lane.

Your best argument in describing conk hypocrisy would be that conks have simply followed increasingly progressive public sentiment to win elections. At the same time, donks became more centrist to keep up with conk campaign financing.

The public polls to the left of both parties when it comes to big issues like entitlement programs, gay marriage, the war on drugs, military adventurism, etc. Despite their rhetorical polarization, neither party is beholden to their ideals. $'s are what drive policy making and legislation.

Bring back Nixon!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Yeah... except that Conk Presidents have - in the last 40 years presided over remarkable expansions of the unitary executive... Nixon, Reagan, W...

It's nice to talk about a civics book - now let's snap back to reality. Conks care about "checking the executive" only when they aren't the executive...

Can say the same about donks too...

eh... If you look at the actual pattern of behavior - the last Dem President to really expand the executive in a meaningful way was Johnson over 40 years ago.

It's easy to fall in to the "a pox on both houses" bit - in this case it's just empirically not true.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

It's the acknowledge part...they refuse to accept that Bush is the fruit of their loins...

Dammitt, you started down a good path, then took a left turn at wing nut lane.

Your best argument in describing conk hypocrisy would be that conks have simply followed increasingly progressive public sentiment to win elections. At the same time, donks became more centrist to keep up with conk campaign financing.

The public polls to the left of both parties when it comes to big issues like entitlement programs, gay marriage, the war on drugs, military adventurism, etc. Despite their rhetorical polarization, neither party is beholden to their ideals. $'s are what drive policy making and legislation.

Bring back Nixon!

Money goes where it naturally has support - it doesn't shape opinion nearly so much as you fancy it does.

Dems didn't moderate 20 years ago to chase money. Dems moderated 20 years ago because the nation had moved to the right - and in order to remain politically relevant, moderating was called for. The public has now moved to the left again, and the GOP will have to do the same thing or die trying (we've yet to discover which path they will choose)

[kalm]

Dammitt, you started down a good path, then took a left turn at wing nut lane.

Your best argument in describing conk hypocrisy would be that conks have simply followed increasingly progressive public sentiment to win elections. At the same time, donks became more centrist to keep up with conk campaign financing.

The public polls to the left of both parties when it comes to big issues like entitlement programs, gay marriage, the war on drugs, military adventurism, etc. Despite their rhetorical polarization, neither party is beholden to their ideals. $'s are what drive policy making and legislation.

Bring back Nixon!

Money goes where it naturally has support - it doesn't shape opinion nearly so much as you fancy it does.

Dems didn't moderate 20 years ago to chase money. Dems moderated 20 years ago because the nation had moved to the right - and in order to remain politically relevant, moderating was called for. The public has now moved to the left again, and the GOP will have to do the same thing or die trying (we've yet to discover which path they will choose)

Yeah, that's why big money backs both parties, both presidential candidates. I know you're not naive and I know you're smart...perhaps it's time for you to take a walk outside the bubble.

Dems didn't moderate 20 years ago, they corporatized because unions were losing their influence. Clinton cozied up to Wall Street. The public doesn't really change back and forth. As older generations move on, we become more progressive.

[SDHornet]

Donks and Neo-cons love a strong central government...that means more money to spend

Conservative want a small central government and weaker executive branch...

Did you sleep through Civics 101???

Yeah... except that Conk Presidents have - in the last 40 years presided over remarkable expansions of the unitary executive... Nixon, Reagan, W...

It's nice to talk about a civics book - now let's snap back to reality. Conks care about "checking the executive" only when they aren't the executive...

Bingo, and that is the irony in all of this. It was never an issue when "their guy" was doing it. Just another fine example of the joke these two parties are.

[CID1990]

It's the acknowledge part...they refuse to accept that Bush is the fruit of their loins...

Wow - you could right history for the Soviet Union.

Bush was a product of the Conservative movement - Dems have zero to do with him.

You need to go read up on the neoconservative movement so's you don't look like a dork.

The intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement as well as many of his flock were dyed in the wool liberals who adopted the philosophy that democracy needs to exported. By force if necessary.

[kalm]

Wow - you could right history for the Soviet Union.

Bush was a product of the Conservative movement - Dems have zero to do with him.

You need to go read up on the neoconservative movement so's you don't look like a dork.

The intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement as well as many of his flock were dyed in the wool liberals who adopted the philosophy that democracy needs to exported. By force if necessary.

Please go on...

[Col Hogan]

Kalm, I'm busy right now rewriting the history of the Soviet Union, thanks to dback for the job referral...

You're a pretty smart guy...CID gave you plenty of info and I know you can figure it out...

Once I finish Chapter 2, I'll check back and see if you are still lost...

[CID1990]

You need to go read up on the neoconservative movement so's you don't look like a dork.

The intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement as well as many of his flock were dyed in the wool liberals who adopted the philosophy that democracy needs to exported. By force if necessary.

Please go on...

Nope! I want you to look it up. Do a little research. Educate yourself.

Then come back and we can talk about neoconservatism, political convenience, strange bedfellows, the lot.

BTW- I'm not saying you aren't a smart guy, just that most people have the MoveOn.org view of neoconservatives, and simply assume that they are an offshoot or subset of the Republican Party. They are not.

[kalm]

Please go on...

Nope! I want you to look it up. Do a little research. Educate yourself.

Then come back and we can talk about neoconservatism, political convenience, strange bedfellows, the lot.

BTW- I'm not saying you aren't a smart guy, just that most people have the MoveOn.org view of neoconservatives, and simply assume that they are an offshoot or subset of the Republican Party. They are not.

It's been awhile since I read up on the neo-cons and you're right, they can trace part of their lineage back to the Democratic Party. But to claim they rose from the loins of liberalism is quite a stretch. Do liberals also get to claim David Horowitz?

Believe me Cid, I have some deep respect for classical conservatives. I'm with you on Patrick Buchanon's ideas. In fact, I'm fascinated by the Nixon administration and some of the people like Pat and Ben Stein that came out of it.

But the neo-conservative movement is completely and utterly a subset of the Republican Party. The party and much of conservative media has been dominated by them for quite awhile. It's hardly even debatable.

Sorry your party left you and Hogan man. I probably would have been voting Republican at some point if it stuck to it's ideals.

[CID1990]

But the neo-conservative movement is completely and utterly a subset of the Republican Party.

They were in the last decade, because they were embraced by the GOP. It was a symbiotic relationship and it was one of convenience. But rest assured, the hawkish nature of the neocons was the only thing they had in common. Watch what happens to neoconservatives if we ever wind up with a true foreign policy conservative Republican in the White House. They'll be right back there pushing for a globalist Clinton liberal.