Washington (CNN) - President Obama's recess appointments to a federal agency– made without Senate confirmation– have been struck down by a federal appeals court as an unconstitutional use of executive power.
The three-judge panel unanimously concluded Friday three people named to the National Labor Relations Board lacked authority, because the presidential appointments were made while the Senate was technically in a "pro forma" session during the winter holiday break.
Imagine that
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So the only technicality was that Obama did it when Congress was NOT in session. Hmmmmmmmm. Bush and Clinton got away with it because Congress WAS in session when THEY did it. Hmmmmmmmm. Me thinks the Repubs are sore losers, and that by pulling this little stunt, they've screwed the pooch for themselves because when they may want that power in the future, they won't have it either. Oooooooooooh, if I can't have the cake anymore, you can't either. Naa naa naa!
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
no discussion around WHY so many routine appointments can't get through the Senate. Maybe the new rules will address that issue. Recently, as many as 3 cabinet appointments were threatened with blockage. Now, for those of you who follow history, only 4 such appointments in the history of the nation have ever been rejected. It's viewed as the President's prerogative to appoint pretty much anyone he wishes to the executive branch. The last cabinet nominee to have been rejected by the Senate was John Tower, who a basic investigation revealed to have a serious drinking problem. Had he not been up for Defense, he might have still been cleared. How times change.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
The winner should get to fill out his Cabinet with people he wants. I believe that is a privilege afforded to all Presidents. Second, that whole pro forma ★■◆● is nuts. I know Reid did it before as well; they have so much stupid goddamn rules in that body, I just don't get it.
Was is it? They leave one person behind and technically they're in session??
That's what I don't understand...is the appeals court really saying that a pro forma session essentially consisting of one guy banging a gavel and calling it a day counts as the Senate convening and doing business? Because goddamn, if that's all it took for me to do a job, I'd be all over it.
callmeslick wrote:no discussion around WHY so many routine appointments can't get through the Senate. Maybe the new rules will address that issue. Recently, as many as 3 cabinet appointments were threatened with blockage. Now, for those of you who follow history, only 4 such appointments in the history of the nation have ever been rejected. It's viewed as the President's prerogative to appoint pretty much anyone he wishes to the executive branch. The last cabinet nominee to have been rejected by the Senate was John Tower, who a basic investigation revealed to have a serious drinking problem. Had he not been up for Defense, he might have still been cleared. How times change.
I didn't know panel positions to the National Labor Relations Board were cabinet positions as you seem to imply. And I guess we should not care about the separation of powers anymore either. How Hillary.
executive appointments aren't, or shouldn't be, a SEPARATION issue. The role of the Senate on such matters is described as 'advise and consent'. Far different than 'throw up every possible roadblock to building an executive team', which has been the case. Why WOULD the Senate block a lower level, non-cabinet set of appointees, Woody? What purpose is served for the public? Or, are the GOP lawmakers just doing the bidding of their masters paying the bills for those campaigns?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
It was the way Obama went about it that was wrong and the judges ruling showed it.
And secondly, the NLRB is not exactly low level and Obama was trying to stack the panel with pro union appointee's. Rulings by the NLRB have far reaching consequences as I am intimately familiar with having gone through the process two times with my business.
I don't know the details of these particular people he appointed but in the past he has appointed or hired people who have a background that makes them a liability to the administration and they had to resign in order for the administration to avoid public backlash.
So, with that in mind, maybe these appointments were done the way they were to avoid letting the repubs publicize the backgrounds of these people.....
If so then of course the repubs will want to make Obama go through the process even if they ultimately dont stop the appointments.
Things like a Treasury Secretary that fails, repeatedly, to pay his taxes, is still newsworthy in the political arena even if the mainstream media says 'what does it matter'.
woodchip wrote:Ummm slickster ole buddy, two things:
It was the way Obama went about it that was wrong and the judges ruling showed it.
it was a technicality around the definition of 'in session'....nothing more, nothing less.
And secondly, the NLRB is not exactly low level and Obama was trying to stack the panel with pro union appointee's. Rulings by the NLRB have far reaching consequences as I am intimately familiar with having gone through the process two times with my business.
by definition, non cabinet appointments are low level, and what on earth suggests it is NOT the President's full prerogative to appoint whoever the feck he wants? Federal judgeships, being life appointments to another branch of government, I can see stronger Senate involvement, but NLRB appointment blockades are simply the GOP lackeys doing the bidding of their monied masters. Obama won the election, he gets to pick who he wants. Simple.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
woodchip wrote:Ummm slickster ole buddy, two things:
It was the way Obama went about it that was wrong and the judges ruling showed it.
And secondly, the NLRB is not exactly low level and Obama was trying to stack the panel with pro union appointee's. Rulings by the NLRB have far reaching consequences as I am intimately familiar with having gone through the process two times with my business.
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.
That begs another question. Why haven't the Dems resorted to that same slimy tactic that the Repubs have mastered, keeping Congress "officially open for business" by gaveling in every three days during their "breaks". Officially open and doing business my ass.
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.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
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.
That begs another question. Why haven't the Dems resorted to that same slimy tactic that the Repubs have mastered, keeping Congress "officially open for business" by gaveling in every three days during their "breaks". Officially open and doing business my ass. ...
They have
from the same article wrote: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.
So, as long as all you D fans and R fans only complain when it works against your team the one thing you can be sure of is, BOTH, the R's and D's will continue to shove it down your throats.
Selective outrage is like manna from heaven for those asshats, all of whom, practically all of you vote for, all the time! Why wouldn't they?
