Supreme Court May Move To Rein In President Obama's Trampling Of The Constitution

[Banjo]

It would appear that there is even a limit for the Supreme Court as to what they will allow President Obama to get away with:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...-rein-president-obamas-trampling-constitution

 

[Ricter]

"According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

"According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

Yeah, I have to admit, this is rather ridiculous. If the Supreme Court finally wants to get serious about constitutional infractions, why don't they take a good look into all the ACA law changes the President is making without congressional approval.

 

[jem]

hopefully they are just warming up to the idea its time to start protecting liberty and the constitution again.

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Yeah, I have to admit, this is rather ridiculous. If the Supreme Court finally wants to get serious about constitutional infractions, why don't they take a good look into all the ACA law changes the President is making without congressional approval.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Yeah, I have to admit, this is rather ridiculous. If the Supreme Court finally wants to get serious about constitutional infractions, why don't they take a good look into all the ACA law changes the President is making without congressional approval.

And I'll admit that the issue also involves whether Congress was actually in recess during the appt. of the three in question. A technicality maybe, but hey, that's law for ya.

 

[Lucrum]

The Supreme Court appeared Monday to disapprove of three recess appointments by President Obama in a case that tests the limits of executive power.

Nearly every justice on the nation's highest adjudicating body questioned the constitutionality of his 2012 National Labor Relations Board picks, which bypassed Senate confirmation.

Even Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee and part of the court's liberal wing, said, "The history is entirely on the Senate's side, not your side."

Chief Justice John Roberts also defended the Senate’s role in approving nominees as an important check on presidential power, contending, “They have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the president submits.”...

Read more: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...urt-tackles-recess-appointments#ixzz2qKT9SHdv

 

[Max E.]

The following is a picture of all the new rules and regulations passed in 2013, the 80000 pages on the bottom of the bookshelf is all the laws passed by unelected officials.

The little stack of papers on top of the bookshelf is the laws passed by elected officials.

This should be alarming to anyone with a brain.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Just to correct what Richter apparently posted, the issue is not the number of recess appointments but the more basic issue of whether the Senate was in recess at all. They contended they were not, yet obama purported to appoint people anyway. This is the context for Kagan's statement. The courts have historically given the legislative branch wide discretion in making and interpreting its own rules. for Obama to declare they were in reces when they claimed not to be is a direct infringment on congressional power. If the congress had any stones, it might be an impeachable issue. At the very least, congress could have retaliated by cutting the NLRB's budget to zero, but of course the dems are far too partisan to act in the greater interests of the country.

There is another issue in this case. It concerns the issue of whether the Recess Clause even applies unless the vacancy itself occured during a recess. That is the plain meaning of the language, although the practice has been to apply it to any vacancy and merely require the appointment of a replacement to be during a recess.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

And I'll admit that the issue also involves whether Congress was actually in recess during the appt. of the three in question. A technicality maybe, but hey, that's law for ya.

You are correct. But Congress is equally at fault, because they play games like "not technically recessed" and the like. It's all politics, and they all are messed up - both sides.