2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSupreme Court says Obama overstepped power in making recess appointments
The Supreme Court has limited a president's power to make temporary appointments to fill high-level government jobs. The court said Thursday that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he invoked the Constitution's provision on recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/high-court-limits-presidents-appointments-power/2014/06/26/4d4a450a-fd3b-11e3-beb6-9c0e896dbcd8_story.html
sinkingfeeling
(51,274 posts)RKP5637
(67,030 posts)onenote
(42,373 posts)And none of the recess appointments made by bush, reagan (or Clinton for that matter) were during recesses of less than 4 days.
This probably was the right decision. It certainly is a better decision than the one the four concurring justices would have made.
unblock
(51,973 posts)meaning that congress can claim it's in session when it really isn't, but this is evidently enough to block recess appointments.
presumably any recess appointments previous presidents made in under the same conditions would now not be legit either, but there can't be too many such appointments still active. if they were, i guess the court just invalidated their appointment.
i suppose any actions they took under now-invalid appointments wouldn't be legit either, though as a practical matter i don't know if these will get challenged.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)It wasn't a recess and therefore there can't be recess appointments.
It can't impact prior presidents' appointments (even if they were made in the same situation - which I don't think was the case), because recess appointments would have expired years ago. So the individual was either later confirmed by the Senate, or is long out of the position.
On edit - that was actually the minority opinion. The ruling actually states:
For purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules,it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.
...snip...
... Although the Senates own determination of when it is and is not in session should be given great weight, the Courts deference cannot be absolute. When the Senate is without the capacity to act, under its own rules, it is not in session even if it so declares.
former9thward
(31,798 posts)They did not violate the Constitution's three day rule.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)RKP5637
(67,030 posts)for life in a supposedly democratic country. I have no idea what makes them so special. It is an obsolete notion, serving for life.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't think 'lifetime appointments' anywhere in government is democratic in the least either.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)I'm off to register people to vote today and put up my first political sign as I am running for a local office. Wish me luck on that.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Because it was a 9-0 decision.
Settle down, all the Supreme Court did was uphold the Constitution, which states that the Pres. cannot make recess appointments while the Congress is still in session.
former9thward
(31,798 posts)All nine voted against Obama including his appointees. When you violate a specific provision of the Constitution expect that to happen.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)It's sure to rally the idiot base.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I have this bad feeling we are going to get screwed on all of them.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Emphasis on work, rather than recessing as much as they do.
And everyone should read the entire, short, article before their panties get too twisted.
Igel
(35,191 posts)The House and Senate say when they're adjourned. (The president can adjourn them if they can't agree, but none ever has. This, presumably, applies just to the intersession adjournment, which used to be quite long.)
One huge problem for (D) is that Obama, like most (D), liked having pro-forma sessions block Bush II appointments. They were good. They were cool. Until Obama was president. Then, suddenly, they were unmitigated evil. It depends whose ox is being gored. It's politics, not principle.
Another huge problem is that if you declare that these pro forma sessions really are recesses and no work can be done you have to account for the bills passed "during recesses." In 2011-2012 the Senate passed five bills by unanimous consent during pro forma sessions. Obama signed all five of them into law. If you can pass a bill during a pro forma session there's no reason that you can't confirm an appointee (Volokh argued this in his amicus brief, and I think this reasoning is quite valid). If those pro forma sessions really are recesses and no work can be done, then Obama signed 5 bills into law that were never ratified by the Senate and he's really quite incompetent. Or he's competent, but is thinking more politically than scholarly. (Because, again, Obama "ratifies" the practice of pro forma sessions as non-recess time--not just when he was a Senator, but also when he was President. When he found it politically useful.)
Thanks for clarifying that, it seems there are some acting like it's the end of the world when in actuality, all that happened is the SC upheld the Constitution on a 9-0 decision, which means that even Pres. Obama's appointees ruled against him.
That's pretty telling.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)I totally agree with this. However, there are way too many days off and recesses.
I was not aware of this. Thanks for the info.
I do think the Supremes made a correct decision, but again, there's entirely too much time off.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The reality of modern politics is that the opposition party in the Senate goes apeshit over just about every single appointment made by the President. The recess appointment is, unfortunately, a necessary counterbalance to that. The appointments only last until the end of the congress, so it's not as though a President can use them to unilaterally shape courts or commissions for decades.
savalez
(3,517 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong but this ruling is in response to Obama's recess appointments that were directly challenging whether or not pro forma sessions are valid. Apparently they are. But he or any president can still make recess appointments in that brief time between sessions as they have been done in the past.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)Were they eventually confirmed? Are their decisions overturned by this ruling?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)and I believe any rulings made during that time by the NLRB will be null and void.
dsc
(52,129 posts)that was the whole point of this case, It was brought by a company which lost a case before the nlrb.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)onenote
(42,373 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)Just ignore their rulings and have a Congress to go along with it so they won't impeach.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Good plan.
Rstrstx
(1,393 posts)..would just have Harry change the no-filibuster rule to apply to all of the President's appointments. There would be absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it and now is the time to do it. If the Rs take the Senate in 2014 Obama's appointees will be screwed either way (but they'd be screwed less without a filibuster, just needing 1 or 2 Rs to vote yes). In the unlikely event the Rs win it all in 2016 I think they'd get rid of the filibuster anyways.
And while they're at it they should get rid of the incredibly stupid blue-slip rule. Maybe I need to brush up on the Constitution but last I checked I would have sworn it was the President who got to nominate federal judges.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)writing their own Platform, one that is against the needs of We the People/the super majority. Does anyone have a list of decisions that led to disasters for the vast majority of Americans and the World? Several States have draw up a State Constitutional Congress, to legislate new Amendments to the Bill of Rights. The supreme court has shown that new term limits are necessary, in my oipinion.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)what to do about the Republican party choosing to not consent to anybody for positions they don't like such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? If the Republicans refuse to participate, there needs to be a way around that.