General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAppeals court: Obama's recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional
by Laura Clawson
President Barack Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year were unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled:
Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays. But the court says the Senate technically stayed in session when lawmakers gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.
The recess appointments were necessary for the NLRB to function at all, since it cannot make decisions without a quorum. Obama is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/25/1181984/-Appeals-court-Obama-s-recess-appointments-to-labor-board-are-unconstitutional
Republicans get to keep using gimmicks to block the President's nomination and also get to keep the filibuster.
Looking for a silver lining on filibuster reform? (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022257507
unblock
(52,196 posts)for republicans to get their way, they don't need to be really present. they merely need to "gavel in" and "gavel out" for "pro forma" sessions.
but in virginia, one democrat's physical absence was all republicans needed to get their way. then, it suited them to require physical presence for the democrat to vote against their redistricting plan.
there's zero principle behind this people. it's all about whatever they can get away with, however they can get away with it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)These people are subverting the democratic process and whining each time anyone does anything to try to get the government functioning again.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)if you read the decision:
Link in this DU post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=380559
the 'pro forma' sessions the Republicans were doing don't even matter as the only 'recess'es that count
for the purpose of 'recess appointments' are those between sessions not those within sessions. Thus the
'pro forma' sessions weren't even necessary under the appeal court's decision (thanks to DUer 'onenote'
for pointing this out).
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Bush's 171 recess appointments were not made "between sessions"
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397589/president-obama-has-made-far-fewer-recess-appointments-than-any-recent-president/
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)recess appointments. This was a far reaching decision that goes against what
has been considered proper for a long time. The Supreme Court will have to
ultimately decide this.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Under the appeal court's decision the intra-session Bush appointments would also be invalid recess appointments. This was a far reaching decision that goes against what has been considered proper for a long time. The Supreme Court will have to ultimately decide this."
...rules only apply to President Obama?
The rules will apply to all future President.
Onenote, in another thread, explains it pretty good.
Meaniepants
(19 posts)So if any judicial appointments bush made were during recess, does that mean they will be removed and any decisions they made invalid ?
nick of time
(651 posts)and one for the SCOTUS to figure out. In my opinion, if it invalidates Pres. Obama's appointments, then it should apply to all past app..
But what the hell do I know, I'm no constitutional scholar.
onenote
(42,694 posts)Other courts in other circuits have reached contrary interpretations about the Recess clause, finding that it applies to intrasession recesses and/or to vacancies that occur before as well as after the recess begins. But under our judicial system, those circuit decisions do not bind other circuits. And thus you sometimes get splits in the circuits, which almost guarantees Supreme Court review.
So in the end, this is going to be decided by the SCOTUS.
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)This would invalidate several appointments by previous presidents as well. I'm not sure this ruling will stand in light of that.
JHB
(37,158 posts)Sentelle was a protege of Jesse Helms, conservative partisan and avid Reaganite (was a convention delegate for Reagan, and named his daughter "Reagan" . Appointed by Reagan to the Court of Appeals in 1987 (replacing Antonin Scalia), he voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter, and was added to the panel overseeing Ken Starr (after Rehnquist ousted more moderate George MacKinnon) and thus allowed Starr to go on his wide-ranging witch-hunt against Bill Clinton (while investigations of Republicans were tightly limited in scope).
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1990s/consor42.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Sentelle
Figures!
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)appointments.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He's a tool, through and through.
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)Judges Karen Henderson and Thomas Griffith were the other two. She was appointed by Reagan and he by George W Bush.
Three Republican tools.
JHB
(37,158 posts)Who does that sort of thing: naming your kid after your personal idol while that person is still an active force in politics? Not an inspiring historical figure, but someone for whom the person is still an active fanboy?
What would conservatives say if Obama nominated a judge who had named their kid "Barack"?
lynne
(3,118 posts)- from the Washington Post article attributed to AP:
"A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session and not in recess at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions."