Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:13 AM Jun 2014

Supreme 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

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court says Obama overstepped power in making recess appointments (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2014 OP
But Bush's and Ronnie's recess appointments were okay? sinkingfeeling Jun 2014 #1
Yep, depends on who is president. R=OK! D=NO! Ain't this a great system we have, NOT. n/t RKP5637 Jun 2014 #3
Actually, it depends on the length of the recess onenote Jun 2014 #21
sounds like they made the gavel-in-gavel-out-every-3-days trick legit. unblock Jun 2014 #9
Exactly right - On edit... it turns out that isn't so. FBaggins Jun 2014 #11
Yes, as well as Clinton's. former9thward Jun 2014 #24
How can we rid ourselves of these monsters? nt WhiteTara Jun 2014 #2
Why in the world they should be life appointments is way beyond me. Why should anyone serve RKP5637 Jun 2014 #4
10 year terms sounds good to me. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #5
vote dem even if .... leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #8
Every election and every ballot WhiteTara Jun 2014 #12
All 9 of them? IronGate Jun 2014 #14
Which monsters? former9thward Jun 2014 #25
Boehner will add this to his Impeachable Offenses list misterhighwasted Jun 2014 #6
The three that are left are all big cases davidpdx Jun 2014 #7
Maybe the court would like to rule that the Senate actually stay and work NV Whino Jun 2014 #10
No can do. Igel Jun 2014 #13
+1000. IronGate Jun 2014 #15
Good points NV Whino Jun 2014 #17
Pro forma sessions were juvenile when we used them against Bush and they're juvenile now Hippo_Tron Jun 2014 #33
Isn't this a narrow ruling that changes nothing? savalez Jun 2014 #16
What happens to those appointees? Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2014 #18
Yes, they were eventually confirmed the Constitutional way, IronGate Jun 2014 #19
they definitely are dsc Jun 2014 #27
Thanks, wasn't quite sure. IronGate Jun 2014 #28
It's a shame there isn't a higher court that could overrule the SC Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #20
and you don't think folks would complain about that court's decisions? onenote Jun 2014 #22
In a sense, there is Reter Jun 2014 #23
Yeah, and then create one hell of a Constitutional crises. IronGate Jun 2014 #29
An easier way... Rstrstx Jun 2014 #31
Another step in changing the political circus court, is to one that is elected. They have been DhhD Jun 2014 #26
a rebuke, don't worry Senate is on extended breaks plenty of weeks! Sunlei Jun 2014 #30
The question becomes mythology Jun 2014 #32

onenote

(42,373 posts)
21. Actually, it depends on the length of the recess
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:37 PM
Jun 2014

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)
9. sounds like they made the gavel-in-gavel-out-every-3-days trick legit.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:29 AM
Jun 2014

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)
11. Exactly right - On edit... it turns out that isn't so.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:43 AM
Jun 2014

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 Senate’s own determination of when it is and is not in session should be given great weight, the Court’s 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.


RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
4. Why in the world they should be life appointments is way beyond me. Why should anyone serve
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:21 AM
Jun 2014

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)
5. 10 year terms sounds good to me.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:22 AM
Jun 2014

I don't think 'lifetime appointments' anywhere in government is democratic in the least either.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
12. Every election and every ballot
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:03 AM
Jun 2014

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)
14. All 9 of them?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:41 AM
Jun 2014

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)
25. Which monsters?
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 10:40 AM
Jun 2014

All nine voted against Obama including his appointees. When you violate a specific provision of the Constitution expect that to happen.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
7. The three that are left are all big cases
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:24 AM
Jun 2014

I have this bad feeling we are going to get screwed on all of them.

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
10. Maybe the court would like to rule that the Senate actually stay and work
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:40 AM
Jun 2014

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)
13. No can do.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:35 AM
Jun 2014

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.)

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
15. +1000.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

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)
17. Good points
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jun 2014
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.

I totally agree with this. However, there are way too many days off and recesses.

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.

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)
33. Pro forma sessions were juvenile when we used them against Bush and they're juvenile now
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jun 2014

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)
16. Isn't this a narrow ruling that changes nothing?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jun 2014

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)
18. What happens to those appointees?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:19 PM
Jun 2014

Were they eventually confirmed? Are their decisions overturned by this ruling?

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
19. Yes, they were eventually confirmed the Constitutional way,
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:28 PM
Jun 2014

and I believe any rulings made during that time by the NLRB will be null and void.

dsc

(52,129 posts)
27. they definitely are
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jun 2014

that was the whole point of this case, It was brought by a company which lost a case before the nlrb.

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
23. In a sense, there is
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 10:26 AM
Jun 2014

Just ignore their rulings and have a Congress to go along with it so they won't impeach.

Rstrstx

(1,393 posts)
31. An easier way...
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 01:24 AM
Jun 2014

..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)
26. Another step in changing the political circus court, is to one that is elected. They have been
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:01 PM
Jun 2014

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.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
32. The question becomes
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 08:37 AM
Jun 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Supreme Court says Obama ...