Obama's NLRB Picks Were Unconstitutional Then (... And Still Are)

View attachment 1252

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ntments-are-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews

 

Four things to remember here:

FOX
NEWS
. (dot)
COM

You know, the masters of BS and other assorted unsavory innuendo ...yet,...(people) continue to use that (site) as a source?

(laughs hysterically)

 

And this by our constitutional scholar president! Loverly!!!

And then another liberal tactic - the district court sends a message and out liberal friend says the messenger is BS. Fox did not make up the message. The district court wrote it.

 

Exactly. How could Constitutional scholar Obama (please note the sarcasm) NOT know it was unconstitutional?

 

Don't get your panties in a bunch. This isn't a Supreme Court ruling, just a federal appeals court. Go take a cold shower and try to relax down there. This isn't decided by either you or False News.

 

Notice that they can only shoot the messenger? However I do agree with Mr dead baby grave dancer......SCOTUS has yet to rule

 

Dead baby grave dancer? I like that. Sort of has a Native American ring to it.

 

If it appears that I am "shooting the messenger", and that confuses you, maybe the "punishment" is only partially suiting the crime.

 

But, what is your opinion? Unconstitutional or not?

 

........ and STILL unconstitutional:


View attachment 1645
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/senate-committee-approves-3-judicial-nominees/

 

Little Joe, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled... and found it was unconstitutional for Obama to make the NLRB appointments.

Supreme Court limits president's recess appointment power

June 26, 2014

The Supreme Court delivered a blow Thursday to President Obama, ruling that he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments. It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break.

In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012. He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling the seats.

The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.

"Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue," Breyer wrote.

At the same time, the court upheld the general authority of the president to make recess appointments.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, among those who criticized the president for unilaterally filling the NLRB slots, applauded the high court decision on Thursday.

"The president made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even bothering to wait for its advice and consent," he said in a statement. "A unanimous Supreme Court has rejected this brazen power-grab."

On a separate track, House Speaker John Boehner said a day earlier he plans to proceed with a lawsuit against the president over his alleged abuse of executive power.

The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees.

But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.

Still, the outcome could have been worse for the administration. The justices, by a 5-4 vote, rejected a sweeping lower court ruling against the administration that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments.

The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future.

The case decided Thursday arose out of a dispute between the NLRB and a Pepsi-Cola distributor, Noel Canning. The NLRB had ruled against him in a labor dispute, but Canning argued that three of the five board members were improperly appointed.

A recess appointment can last no more than two years. Recess appointees who subsequently won Senate confirmation include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, two current NLRB members and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is among recess appointees who left office because they could not win a Senate vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/26/supreme-court-limits-president-recess-appointment-power/

 

It was unconstitutional then and it's unconstitutional now.

I'll ask again: How could a constitutional scholar like Obama NOT know it was unconstitutional?

 

I wonder if this will set aside the Northwestern Football Player's Union ruling?

 

Was that unconstitutional, also?

 

I believe it was in April of this that the NLRB ruled on a petition brought by the Northwestern University Football Players - stating that the players meet the definition of employees of the University and thus granting them the right to form a player's union.

Hey I am just a farmer - I don't know if the ruling was unconstitutional or not but apparently the body that gave the ruling was formed unconstitutionally. If that makes any difference?

 

Interesting. I certainly believe it would be grounds to challenge the ruling by the NLRB. Good point!

 

All case decisions since January , 2012 have been thrown out. I am not sure of the date of that cased, but I think it was included.

 

As well they should be. If the board was appointed contrary to the Constitution, then their decisions should, at least, be suspended until they can be reviewed by a board that was properly appointed.

It's no wonder that John Boehner wants to sue Obama for overreaching his Constitutional authority. The NLRB appointees are a perfect example. When you have someone like Obama who acts like an emperor using his pen and phone to circumvent this country's legislative branch in order to instill his will upon the country, we need people to stand up to tyrants like him.

 

What does this have to do with the man in the moon? They reported the news and you ... umm.. think.. something is wrong with that?

It certainly looks like they had it right when they reported this in 2013. Who else was hammering Obama on his unconstitutional appointments to the NLRB at the time? Certainly not you because you're nothing more than a liberal partisan hack.