Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 26, 2014

In a rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court struck down three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional.
The decision Thursday gives the Senate broad power to thwart future recess appointments, but did not go as far as some conservatives hoped to undercut the president's ability to fill vacant executive branch posts and judicial slots. The court ruled 9-0 that Obama's appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

jeffj

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It will be interesting to see how this site's liberals and lefties react to this. Many applauded Obama for his unconstitutional maneuver.

I have to point out that this is a unanimous decision.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

So the SC hands the Republicans another tool to prevent the President from doing his job. But hey, who needs a National Labor Relations Board anyway? Right Jeff? Just remember, pay backs will be a bitch and they will come. Most obstructionist Congress in my lifetime and I'm sort of old.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-26 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama made recess appointments when there wasn't an actual recess?

who told Obama this would hold up to SC scrutiny? I've never been in the crowd of folks who constantly call Obama incompetent.....but this was an incompetent move, obviously.

has a previous president, ever, made recess appointments when congress was in session....with success?

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Most obstructionist Congress in my lifetime and I'm sort of old."

aren't you getting tired of crying about everything?

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I have to point out that this is a unanimous decision."

which will get a big yawn from most obamabots. they only cry about 5-4 decisions......well, except Danni so far.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry Danni,

We are going to win the Senate, retain the House and hopefully get the White House. You wont have to worry about being obstructionist. Maybe then we can go about undoing the damage Obama has done..

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-26 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I have to point out that this is a unanimous decision."

I understand the SC's decision on this, I pretty much expected it. What I don't understand is the Republicans in the Senate who forced Obama to even try such a thing, where is your outrage that he is being prevented from doing his job? And then these same people complain about how he is not improving our economy fast enough, not creating enough jobs, etc. At what point do Republicans and Independents start placing the blame on those who so richly deserve it? Have they lost all semblance of patriotism? Party before Country all the time is starting to border on sedition.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-26 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

"The definition of recess is when no business shall be conducted."

By that definition, the Boehner led House has never been in session.

#9 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2014-06-26 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Since 2012, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against President Pajama Boy 13 times. I thought he was a constitutional scholar.

#10 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-26 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

some people never played sports, apparently.

when you play basketball....someone guards you. you have to deal with that. you have to shoot over them, dribble around them, etc....

Obama has to deal with an opposition party....all presidents do.

there is no excuse for this complete blunder. the GOP didn't cause this, for christs sakes.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

These appointments are about negotiating. Obama doesn't negotiate and if he says he will he simply will double cross the republicans and not keep his word. Perfect example was on the tax increase for "the rich" a couple of years ago. He told republicans if they would raise those taxes he would talk about spending cuts. He even created sequestration to show them he meant business. As soon as they raised taxes Obama told them to piss off. Not only that he ran against them on spending cuts and blamed sequestration on them. He's a liar plain and simple and you can't negotiate with liars.

#12 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-26 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Quit your crying, Danni.

Reid nuked the filibuster for presidential appointments.

And you are right, payback's a bitch. I guarantee Reid will un-nuke the filibuster during the lame duck session of the GOP takes the Senate in November.

In Danni's world the GOP should do whatever Obama wants, 100% of the time. Anything less constitutes obstructionism.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, and before you go off on unprecedented number of filibusters, google the term "filled tree".

When just about everything that Reid brings to the floor makes no allowances for amendments, filibuster is the only avenue left to the minority party even in situations where they have agreement on 90% of the legislation, but the other 10% is so egregious, they have to kill the entire thing.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency.

"If he was for it," former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, "we had to be against it."

swampland.time.com

no-honeymoon strategy, indeed.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"These appointments are about negotiating."

They are as long as Obama is President but they never were before. For the most part Presidents have appointed who they wanted for most jobs such as NLRB. To pretend otherwise is just plain dishonest. No other President has not had the ability to use recess appointments, no other time in the Senate have they played games with recesses as they do now.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-26 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16 Obama and the Democrats brought it on themselves when the drafted Obamacare in dark rooms and brought it to vote before anyone could read it. Obama, Pelosi and Reid naively believed that once they'd -------- the Republicans with ACA, the Republicans would not only forget about it but learn to embrace them. They were wrong. Elephants have long memories.

#17 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-06-26 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"For the most part Presidents have made recess appointments during actual recesses. To pretend otherwise is retarded"

ft

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

No other President has not had the ability to use recess appointments, no other time in the Senate have they played games with recesses as they do now.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI

The Pro Forma sessions that you are referring to were created by Reid to prevent Bush from making recess appointments. If you want to bitch about it, see Harry Reid. It is his creation.

You should actually be applauding this ruling. The recess appointment clause has been abused for a long time now, going WAY beyond what was intended by the founders.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is good. Very very good Thanks you supremes.

#21 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-26 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

This does t say the pres can't make recess appointments. It says only the senate says whe it is in recess and that is right. Obama was full of it when they said anytime business isn't bring done is recess.

#22 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-26 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#22

Yep. And Danni is pissed about it.

#16 Obama and the Democrats brought it on themselves when the drafted Obamacare in dark rooms and brought it to vote before anyone could read it. Obama, Pelosi and Reid naively believed that once they'd -------- the Republicans with ACA, the Republicans would not only forget about it but learn to embrace them. They were wrong. Elephants have long memories.

#17 | POSTED BY MUSTANG GT

VERY good point. A point that Danni will likely never acknowledge.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hilarious.

Rwingers ignore the "no-honeymoon" strategery their team embarked on at teh start and whine about what had to be done to function against a plan of no cooperation ever at all.

Obama bent over backwards to include teh GOP in ACA and other negotiations, all teh while his base was telling him they had no intention of ever compromising on anything.

And they never did.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI

#25 | POSTED BY CORKY

Has anyone ever forced either one of you to break the law? That's what you are saying, right, He was forced to break the law?

That doesn't really hold water in a nation governed by the rule of law.

#26 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-06-26 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama and the Democrats brought it on themselves when the drafted Obamacare in dark rooms and brought it to vote before anyone could read it."

Still pretending that the obstructionism didn't start at a meeting on inauguration day among GOP leaders who said they were going to go obstruct everything he tried to do. Everything after that was just them carrying out the plan they set forth that day, it was not a reaction to anything Obama did because it preceded anything he did as President.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-26 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#25

From April of 2010 until it's passage the GOP was completely frozen out of all meetings between congressional Dems and Obama regarding the ACA.

I guess that constitutes 'bending over backwards'.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I guess that constitutes 'bending over backwards"

When it comes to the ACA there was definitely bending over going on but it was not backwards and it sure as hell was not Obama bending.

#29 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-26 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26

It's like civil disobedience where no one is hurt. The public gets to see what extremist obstructionism like shutting down the government or saying you are working when you are not just to keep the Exec from making appointments can lead to.

Faux rwing outrage notwithstanding, of course.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28

lmao... yeah they were frozen out of Dem meetings, but had a multitude of amendments included in the legislation.

Poor babies.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

" extremist obstructionism"

Care to give an example of extremism?
Just repeating the words does not make it true.

#32 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-26 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"extremist obstructionism"

Costing the US taxpayer billions of dollars with government shutdown threats.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

but had a multitude of amendments included in the legislation.

Which amounted to the GOP picking the interior color of a car they hate.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#33

Yup really extreme, just like congress has done for almost every modern president.

Got a real example?

#35 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-26 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#34

The color of the car they designed and built and promoted... until Obama put it on the table.

Of course, you guys can revel in the fact that they manged to let states choose not to expand Medicaid, which has led to thousands of deaths and finally some GOP Govs recanting and applying for expansion.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

- just like congress has done for almost every modern president.

Citation of billions of dollars in additional expenses paid for by US taxpayers because of shutdown threats to, "almost every modern president> necessary.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will grant you that the 'no honeymoon' strategy was WAY cynical.

Having said that, Obama's biggest initiatives ACA, Dodd-Frank, Cap and Trade and Stimulus ALL should have (and did) received near universal opposition.

It didn't matter. The Dems had huge majorities in both chambers and were happy to push forward anyway.

Bush was polarizing and divisive, but he didn't start out that way.

NCLB was a boon to big government progressivism and he allowed Ted Kennedy to be the chief architect of it.

He also re-nominated 10 stalled Clinton judicial appointments as one of his first acts coming into office.

His actions were one of a true olive branch. Even with his controversial Iraq decision - he spent a LOT of time building consensus and a LOT of Democrats voted for the resolution to use force.

He also never engaged in childish name-calling or ridiculous strawmen and he certainly didn't constantly shift blame.

You can make the argument that the GOP dropped the initial poison into the well. However, Dems have been dropping the poison by the truckload ever since.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the GOP dropped the initial poison into the well

Yeah they did, and they made Americans drink from it ever since.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama BTFO by a unanimous supreme court. Isn't he supposed to be a "constitutional scholar?"

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2014-06-26 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The color of the car they designed and built and promoted... until Obama put it on the table.

Um, no.

Of course, you guys can revel in the fact that they manged to let states choose not to expand Medicaid, which has led to thousands of deaths and finally some GOP Govs recanting and applying for expansion.
#36 | POSTED BY CORKY

It has NOT lead to thousands of deaths. It hasn't lead to any deaths because an ER can NOT refuse to provide emergency care.

Also, ACA tried to strong-arm the Medicaid expansion and SCOTUS struck it down for the BS it is.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

It takes 2 to tango, Cork.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36

in 95-96 the shutdown was a little over 100,000,000 a day. Which is a bit closer, and used actual data, than the the absolute joke that the most recent one cost 24 billion.

#43 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-26 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Um, no.

Um, yes. It was originally a Heritage Foundation proposal.

"But as Dan pointed out, the 24 states not expanding Medicaid represent roughly 5,790 preventable deaths under a similar calculation, and that number is not likely to move much without drastic policy changes."

www.advisory.com

GOP's Obamacare spite means death toll for red states

www.dailykos.com

There are literally hundreds of more sources.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43

Glad we finally found something rwingers don't mind spending billions of their tax dollars, on, lmao.

Hissy fits.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was originally a Heritage Foundation proposal.

It was one person at Heritage. Also, Heritage is NOT the GOP.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

- Heritage is NOT the GOP.

Wow! Some real news.

It was a well-known conservative proposal.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#44

The problem with that analysis is that a study in Oregon of actual Medicaid patients showed ZERO improvement in health outcomes.

In that Advisory link they are basing their numbers on actual health insurance and then are extrapolating over to Medicaid. But said extrapolation ignores the Oregon study which contradicts their study.

Other links are just echoing the same flawed analysis.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

it was a huge miscalculation to assume all red states would choose to expand Medicaid.

it was a certainty, in fact.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeffy, people who are denied coverage die more frequently than those who are not.

That it was done in a fit of political spite... and as a cynical attempt to make uninformed people think it was the fault of the ACA, just makes it all the more despicable.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26

It's like civil disobedience where no
one is hurt.
#30| POSTED BY CORKY

We are all hurt when the Constitution is willfully disregarded by the Executive and the Legislators. It just happens that it was the Executive this time.

#52 | Posted by txlibertarian at 2014-06-26 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#52

S'riously? And how were we all hurt in this particular case?

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I sure hope I haven't harshed any rwinger's highs today.

:^)

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"5,790 preventable deaths"

that's nearly 6,000 people I'm not providing free care to any longer.

good. political spite works.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was originally a Heritage Foundation proposal.

Actually, the idea of an individual mandate precedes the 1989 Heritage piece you are referring to. Also, you act as if the idea had universal support among conservatives and Republicans.

Many conservatives opposed the individual mandate

The fact that many prominent Republicans and conservatives supported the mandate does not, by any stretch, mean that conservatives did as a whole. Peter Ferrara, a Heritage Foundation alumnus, takes credit for "killing" the Heritage plan after he left the think-tank.


www.forbes.com

The linked article is very long, but it's very informative.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56

lol, it's an apologetic saying Romney and Newt and the Heritage Plantation are REALLY NOT solely to blame for the embarrassment of looking like they were only bashing ObamaCare because Obama is, well, you know.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57

Romney vetoed the individual mandate, but 80% of the Mass. congress was Dem and they over-rode the veto.

There is NO way you could have actually read the link in the 5 minute period between my providing it and you commenting.

Seriously, it's an interesting read. Drop the "I've got to win the argument" attitude, and read it. I am pretty sure you'll find it interesting.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the SC hands the Republicans another tool to prevent the President from doing his job. But hey, who needs a National Labor Relations Board anyway? Right Jeff? Just remember, pay backs will be a bitch and they will come. Most obstructionist Congress in my lifetime and I'm sort of old.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-

NO COMMENT EVER from the left about obstruction has one 'smidgeon' of credibility when the FACT IS that well over 200 bills have passed the house only to be thrown away at Harry Reid's desk..this response EVERY TIME your side tries it rings hollow and will for some time.

reminder...NONE Of the SC agrees with the white house and libs here.

#59 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-26 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeffy, people who are denied coverage die more frequently than those who are not.

Not when it comes to Medicaid - the Oregon study bears this out, as you know, it was exclusively studying the health outcomes of Medicaid.

That it was done in a fit of political spite... and as a cynical attempt to make uninformed people think it was the fault of the ACA, just makes it all the more despicable.

It was an increased burden to states' budgets.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

I have to point out that this is a unanimous decision.

I have to point out that this is a unanimous result meaning the appointment is invalid. The reasoning is 5-4 with entirely different views of the recess appointments clause. Opinion analysis: Pragmatism triumphs over formalism

#61 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-26 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58

Ever hear of Evelyn Woods?

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-26 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61

I was aware. Scalia wrote a concurring opinion citing the majority opinion was too narrow and thus leaves open the possibility for future abuses.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, you're a speed reader?

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#52

S'riously? And how were we all hurt in
this particular case?

#53| POSTED BY CORKY

I believe an every encroaching and unitary Executive, is a threat to the Constitution, the rule of law and by extension, the citizenry.

#65 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-06-26 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

S'riously? And how were we all hurt in
this particular case?

#53| POSTED BY CORKY

I believe an every encroaching and unitary Executive, is a threat to the Constitution, the rule of law and by extension, the citizenry.

#65 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN a

two things...CORK..seriously?? This board has already proven they are political operatives more than watchdogs with their rulings about the auto business..

TXLIBER....outstanding reply !!

#66 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-26 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Glad we finally found something rwingers don't mind spending billions of their tax dollars, on, lmao."

I think you missed the point.
The GOP is not extreme, not even close. The example you gave for extremism falls completely on its face when historical context is provided. Both parties have use that tactic before and it is not uncommon. Frankly if anything the dems are for more to the extreme then the GOP as the GOP has constantly moved left throughout the years to the point where what we consider the middle now would have been hard line leftist just a few decades ago. I know this does not fit with the political cartoons you get all your opinion from but that is the reality by every honest measure. The right goes left, now to the point where they would easily be considered liberals and the left has gone even further to the point that just a few decades ago they would have been ousted as extremists.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-26 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

is the worm FINALLY turning with this ruling and on a very much related issue coming from NEW YORK........

Court Rules NYC Soda Ban Will Not Be Reinstated Because Gov't ‘Engaged in Law-Making Beyond Its Regulatory Authority'

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Guzzlers prevailed Thursday as New York's highest court refused to reinstate New York City's ban on the sale of big sodas, ruling that the city's health department overstepped its bounds when approved the 16-ounce cap on sugary beverages.

LET ME REPEAT THIS PART so that you here and maybe the white house will READ IT....

Because Gov't ‘Engaged in Law-Making Beyond Its Regulatory Authority'

#68 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-26 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

There was no reason to ever allow it and anyone who supported it is a blind sycophant.

#69 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-26 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

What an incredibly racist decision by SCOTUS. Dear Leader must be appalled that he is required to obey the law. Obama is a POS.

#70 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-06-26 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Has anyone ever forced either one of you to break the law? That's what you are saying, right, He was forced to break the law?

That doesn't really hold water in a nation governed by the rule of law.

#26 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Pretending to be in session just to block the President seems completely dishonest to me.

And I bet you are so naive you think that no President has defied Congress or broken the law before in order to try and get things done.

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-26 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Because Gov't ‘Engaged in Law-Making Beyond Its Regulatory Authority'

#68 | Posted by afkabl2

Never mind that Congress was preventing the National Labor Relations Board from being able to enforce the nation's labor laws because it lacked a quorum.

I guess Obama has no choice but to sue Congress for Obstruction of Justice now.

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-26 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pretending to be in session just to block the (Black) President seems completely dishonest to me.

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014

FTFY

By the way, how dare those Black Folk down south vote GOP.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-26 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I bet you are so naive you think
that no President has defied Congress
or broken the law before in order to
try and get things done.
#71| POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Quite the contrary, I know they have. That makes it ok for the current President to do the same? Others broke the law so the current President gets to as well, is that your point?

#74 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-06-26 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is much ado about very little: Obama was wrong in trying to decide when the Senate was or was not in session. The Senate has it's rules and they alone determine when they are or aren't in session.

That's the gist and limit of this. Recess appointments are still as they were before: constitutional, and the right of any sitting President given the circumstances.

#75 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-26 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess Obama has no choice but to sue Congress for Obstruction of
Justice now.
#72| POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Or nominate someone who could have been confirmed.

#76 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-06-26 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or nominate someone who could have been confirmed.

That was the problem. There was NO ONE Obama could have nominated -- but for a far-right wing conservative -- that the minority would even allow an up/down vote! It's one thing to have severe principled opposition to a nominee who's views or stances are abhorrent to a large section of the public and quite another to actually deny a majority vote over any qualified nominee for the sake of political ends which harms actual taxpayers for the sake of helping business, again.

This case wasn't about the qualifications of the nominees or usurping the "advise and consent" role the Senate is supposed to fulfill. It was about the GOP's determination to deny a legislated government bureau the mandated quorum necessary to do it's prescribed job in providing oversight and adjudication of labor disputes which in turn helps big business and employers in disputes with their employees. Anyone feigning outrage about anything else is simply blowing wind so they can call it a tempest. The President didn't force the appointments out of arrogance or any psychological need to dictate; he did it so a needed agency that helps working Americans in their grievances against employers and businesses could have their day in court, so to speak.

But again, Obama was constitutionally wrong and the SCOTUS right on the unanimous result.

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-26 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Or nominate someone who could have been confirmed.

#76 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

And you should know there is no one who could have been confirmed as Tony points out.

The GOP has been deliberately obstructing justice and attempting to sabotage the Government by preventing the NLRB from being able to do its job. The GOP's blockade of NLRB nominees would have prevented it from issuing rules and regulations, since it needs at least three members to form a quorum.

That is why Obama had to act. Indeed, forced to.

The NLRB, a product of the New Deal, has become a lightning rod for accelerating political controversy not seen since its early days. It became entangled in the bitter partisan fights of the 2012 election season with the attacks on government and the broad campaign to weaken organized labor's political influence. It weathered aggressive congressional oversight, battles over its budget, including an effort to entirely defund it, repeated assaults in the media and other existential threats. Various Republican senators vowed to filibuster any nominees to the board. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared that for the NLRB "inoperable is progress."

www.politico.com

#78 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-26 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Pretending to be in session just to block the President seems completely dishonest to me.

Yes it does. I'm glad someone finally got around to talking about that. It's a shady move to gavel the Senate every three days when it's not actually in session just to stop a president from making recess appointments.

I don't fault the Supreme Court for the decision, but to act like Obama was the only party engaging in gamesmanship is bogus. If President Romney couldn't make recess appointments because Harry Reid gaveled in the Senate every three days and it did no actual work, Republicans would have a conniption.

#79 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-26 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

AHA HA HA>...any of you read Reid's reaction...

oh MAN...it's great..

he went on and on about how obama HAD to do this because of the gop obstruction........

any one want to tell him why the seats were open in the first place??

this man needs to see a doctor.

#80 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-26 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I read and read and read on this subject here and other places and I've got this taste in my mouth..

NO, it's not sour grapes....it's something else..

OH IT"S SWEET JUSTICE.....

:)

#81 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-26 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't fault the Supreme Court for the decision, but to act like Obama was the only party engaging in gamesmanship is bogus. If President Romney couldn't make recess appointments because Harry Reid gaveled in the Senate every three days and it did no actual work, Republicans would have a conniption.

#79 | POSTED BY RCADE

Harry Reid did just that at the end of Bush's second term - after the Bolton appointment.

Republicans obviously decided to go quid pro quo.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Proper ruling by the SCOTUS.

#83 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-26 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

This has been going on for decades. This decision will have unintended consequences.

#84 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-06-27 12:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

This has been going on for decades.

Yes and no.

Presidents have been abusing the recess appointment for decades. No question.

But that wasn't what this case was about.

Obama made recess appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess.

This is why the ruling was unanimous.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-27 12:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's a shady move to gavel the Senate every three days when it's not actually in session just to stop a president from making recess appointments.

#79 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-26 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You need a little history lesson - although libs tend to ignore history unless it fits "their" version I supply this from the NYT anyway:

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- Who says the Senate cannot act quickly? It conducted a full day's business in less than 30 seconds on Tuesday.

Of course, there was no real business to conduct. But fearing that President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install disputed executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation, Democrats convened the Senate for the first of four microsessions to be held during the holiday break, precisely to thwart such an end run.

Guessing YOU didn't complain then?

#86 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-06-27 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny but this issue never came up during ------ recess appointments. The SCOTUS gang of 5, most partisan hacks in my lifetime. Should we expect more trick language, like was used against Gore, so that the Court's ruling could never be applied against a ------.

#87 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-27 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Guessing YOU didn't complain then?

Guessing you did.

I thought gaveling in was shady back then too. Unlike you, I can recognize cheap tricks by my own side.

#88 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-27 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

One thing this thread has shown me is that this UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling is decades too late, but thank G-d they finally closed this horrible door that has been exploited.

I believe we were approaching a time where the next President could declare Congress at recess at 5pm every day since no business was being conducted after 5.

Clarity is always a good thing. Limiting executive power is even better.

Obama can't do this for the next two years and, far more importantly, the next President can't do this at all.

#89 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-27 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

PS- Three unanimous Supreme Court decisions in two days only goes to prove global climate change has hit Hades and Hell has finally frozen over.

#90 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-27 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

PS- Three unanimous Supreme Court decisions in two days only goes to prove global climate change has hit Hades and Hell has finally frozen over.

#90 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-27 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Or that the professor of constitutional law maybe shouldn't have been editor in charge of the Harvard Law Review after all.....

Did you know the Obama administration's position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen -- cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?

"When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it."

www.nationalreview.com

#92 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-06-27 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Never mind that Congress was preventing the National Labor Relations Board from being able to enforce the nation's labor laws because it lacked a quorum.

I guess Obama has no choice but to sue Congress for Obstruction of Justice now.

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at

but isn't this a senate appointment.....a body run by democrats ?

#93 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-27 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

I thought gaveling in was shady back then too. Unlike you, I can recognize cheap tricks by my own side.

#88 | Posted by rcade at 2014

SURELY you're not talking about the bolton recess appointment because the senate was IN "RECESS" you see.....

I'd be interested in hearing about all these 'cheap tricks' you refer
to...

** and I"m not talking about the 'cheap tricks' in the PERSONALS section......AHA HA HA AHA HA HA

#94 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-27 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

COME ON FOLKS...FACE IT ...

you're upset cause obama got THUMPED by the same body that destroyed our health care system and helped set obama on his way to break his oath to protect the constitution over 30 times on obamacare...just for starters.

#95 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-27 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Limiting executive power is even better.

Obama can't do this for the next two years and, far more importantly, the next President can't do this at all.

#89 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-27 11:05 AM

BRAVO !!!

and I have 'evolved',....before I kept saying that it was going to be great when a republican was doing this to YOU....but instead, it's important that the GOP president follow the constitution and separation of powers....

of course, he'll have to have both houses because by then the democrat will be even more despicable after tasting this unfettered power..>UP TO NOW !!!!

#96 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-27 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

but instead, it's important that the GOP president follow the constitution and separation of powers....

I'm not being partisan. You say what you did because you believe the next President will be a Repub. I am speaking regardless of party, the next President and all future Presidents won't be able to exploit this.

And yes, I did complain when Obama did it.

#97 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-27 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't recall it. Certainly his out and out ignorance of the rule of law is left untouched by you and your "side". No need to bring up Bush here as you and the left think they are better than the right so why "lower" the bar.

#91 | POSTED BY E_PLURIBUS_UNUM

True. No need to lower the bar and bring Bush into it to remind us all of the torture years...tho you certainly just did.

And it is sad to see your memory of the past going like that. Alzheimers is a terrible disease.

The business of politics are full of dirty tricks. Yes..We cheered when our side exploits them them for the better good and we boo when your side exploits them in order to do things like start wars and torture humans which apparently is what your side thinks is the better good.

Perhaps you should sue us when you think of something good to sue us for.

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

. "Unlike you, I can recognize cheap tricks by my own side."

like making recess appointments when there is no recess?

:-)

#99 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-27 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not being partisan. You say what you did because you believe the next President will be a Repub. I am speaking regardless of party, the next President and all future Presidents won't be able to exploit this.

And yes, I did complain when Obama did it.

#97 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-0

yes sir I know you were...and I was saying that I WOULD LOVE to shove this in the face and other places on liberals when YES the next potus is there and a republican or to the right of them.....BUT on reflection, the country would be better off returning the constitution as power instead of the political whims and needs of Obama..

#100 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-27 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

sorry..YES I know you WEREN"T being partisan...

duh..

#101 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-27 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

to do things like start wars and torture humans which apparently is what your side thinks is the better good.

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would be careful casting stones on my memory when you seem to forget your side voted for and agreed with the war and was aware of the implementation/use of EIT until it became politically expedient NOT to do so. (e.g. Pelosi) - additionally, the definition of "torture" is debatable in your context. EIT =/ torture.

#102 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-06-27 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would be careful casting stones on my memory when you seem to forget your side voted for and agreed with the war and was aware of the implementation/use of EIT until it became politically expedient NOT to do so.

Which was, of course, due to one of those cheap political tricks called Lying.

I don't ever remember EVER agreeing with the war and I know at least one other important person who stood firm against the Lies and Dirty Tricks used to scare and intimidate everyone else into war.

Barack Obama.

And you call torture "Enhanced Interrogation" because Torture is against the Law. Bush quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he had the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

But, lordy you catch THIS President doing anything like that and OMG THIS President is in "total ignorance" of the Law.

Now having said all that I do think the Court ruled correctly. And I don't like either side using "cheap political tricks" to get things done.

But, to even pretend that Obama is worse than any other President in this regard is just plain absurd.

#103 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Now having said all that I do think the Court ruled correctly. And I don't like either side using "cheap political tricks" to get things done.

But, to even pretend that Obama is worse than any other President in this regard is just plain absurd.

#103 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with both of those statements. Of course BUSH wasn't a constitutional law professor at Harvard. Presumably he was too "stupid" to interpret the constitution. Obama claims and ran his campaigns to the contrary - touting his constitutional credentials. But like I said, I don't like ANY lawmaker using stunts or tricks as a third grader would do to get what they want.

#104 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-06-27 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama claims and ran his campaigns to the contrary - touting his constitutional credentials. But like I said, I don't like ANY lawmaker using stunts or tricks as a third grader would do to get what they want.

#104 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

Like pretending to be in session just to block and Presidential Recess appts?

Yeah... shame on the President for testing his Constitutional limits.

Huzzah for the Supreme Court for reminding him that there are some.

Now if only we could get the third Branch, Congress, to quit shirking its duty and obligations, undermining the Law, attempting to Sabotage the US Government and then complaining that the US Government does not work and forcing the President to test his Constitutional limits just to try and keep that Government functional.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

President to test his Constitutional limits just to try and keep that Government functional.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nonsense. The government is as "functional" as always. You incorrectly attribute the minority party's attempts at stopping legislation/appointments that their constituency disagrees with as obstructionist. This is not obstructionist, it is representative. Just like the other party does when not in power.

If either party rubber stamped legislation put forth by the other - what would be the reason for two parties? The differences are supposed to spark debate and compromise - not blind allegiance. And BOTH "obstruct" based on their constituency.

#106 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-06-27 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The government is as "functional" as always. You incorrectly attribute the minority party's attempts at stopping legislation/appointments that their constituency disagrees with as obstructionist. This is not obstructionist, it is representative. Just like the other party does when not in power.

Um... no... Reality does not support your argument that this is just like "the other party does when in power".

The NLRB had been without its full slate of five board members for two years has been unable to function, lacking even the three members required to reached a quorum. That is not "functional as always".

And this particular agency is not the only one being sabotaged by the GOTP.

Out of ~168 presidential nominees that have been filibustered(going back to 1949), ~82 have been blocked under President Obama, ~86 blocked under ALL the other presidents during that time.

History does not support your contention that this President is being treated like any other President and this is "representative" and not Obstructionist.

#107 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-27 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Which amounted to the GOP picking the interior color of a car they hate.
#34 | Posted by JeffJ"

A car they conceived, designed, and built the first model of.
Lol.

#108 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-27 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Progressives wanted single payer. The GOP wanted the status quo or, at most, something like Obamacare. Obama relents, takes single payer off the table before negotiations even really start, and agrees to the Republican (Heritage Foundation/Romneycare) approach.

But Obama's the one who didn't work with the other side.

Delusion. Pure delusion. Lol

#109 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-27 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Having said that, Obama's biggest initiatives ACA, Dodd-Frank, Cap and Trade and Stimulus ALL should have (and did) received near universal opposition.

Demonstrably false. Unless you're only talking about the partisan echo chambers which continue to regurgitate old talking points from four years ago.

#110 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-06-27 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Which amounted to the GOP picking the interior color of a car they hate.
#34 | Posted by JeffJ"
A car they conceived, designed, and built the first model of.
Lol.

#108 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

Um, no. Debunked on a different thread.

Progressives wanted single payer. The GOP wanted the status quo or, at most, something like Obamacare. Obama relents, takes single payer off the table before negotiations even really start, and agrees to the Republican (Heritage Foundation/Romneycare) approach.
But Obama's the one who didn't work with the other side.
Delusion. Pure delusion. Lol

#109 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

Revisionist history. Obama ditched single-payer because he didn't have enough support for it within his own party. The 'Public Option' was ditched because he didn't have enough support for it within his own party. These things were NOT ditched as an olive branch to the GOP.

What in the hell happened? You're usually not succeptible to easily disarmed talking points.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-28 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Revisionist history. Obama ditched single-payer because he didn't have enough support for it within his own party. The 'Public Option' was ditched because he didn't have enough support for it within his own party. These things were NOT ditched as an olive branch to the GOP.

What in the hell happened? You're usually not succeptible to easily disarmed talking points.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-28 01:34 AM | Reply

WRONGO yet again JeffJ.. Single payer was KILLED because of Joe Lieberman. It had broad support within the Democratic Party.

www.slate.com

#112 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-28 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some more on Joe Lieberman's killing of Single Payer

voices.washingtonpost.com

#113 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-28 02:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's no wonder Joe Lieberman killed Single Payer. Check out his wife.

en.wikipedia.org

#114 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-28 02:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Larry,

I thought Lieberman killed the public option.

Regardless, Lieberman was a Democrat (yes I know he was technically an independent at the time, but he still caucused with the Dems). Also, it took more than Lieberman. They had almost 60 Dem senators, and while at the time the filibuster was in play, they ultimately went with the reconciliation process to get the final monstrostiy passed when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat.

In spite of a big majority in the House, it barely passed.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-28 02:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Larry,

My point was this: Monte was pretending that the final version of the bill was an olive branch to the GOP - it clearly wasn't.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-28 02:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now if only we could get the third Branch, Congress, to quit shirking its duty and obligations, undermining the Law, attempting to Sabotage the US Government and then complaining that the US Government does not work and forcing the President to test his Constitutional limits just to try and keep that Government functional.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at

yeah it could work better....like when the republican house sends a passed bill to the senate you would think that harry reid would at LEAST bring it to the floor but that rarely happens....and how about that BUDGET ?????

George Will's best columns are on how the founders made it hard to pass laws on purpose and to make a constitutional change even harder.
and now at this point, with all of the lies about so many issues and the attack on american citizens using the IRS and such...why should we on the right trust the democrats on anything they say or promise concerning bills and laws ?

#117 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-28 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

.like when the republican house sends a passed bill to the senate you would think that harry reid would at LEAST bring it to the floor but that rarely happens..

Basically, Boehner and Reid must go. Neither one brings bills to the floor of their house of Congress unless they like the bill and that is neither person's job.

#118 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-28 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

whatever the heritage foundation or romney said or did.....obamacare was born of LIES, DECEIT AND FRAUD...from the LIES about keeping this and that not happening and on and on...LIES FROm the very beginning...TO taking money from medicare, counting it TWICE and promising we would not be EXTORTED Into paying for abortion and such....

and so the man decides to just SIGN away the separation of powers and more and does so with the loud approval of the left and the tacit approval of the gop establishment...

at least here, the supremes have said THIS was unconstitutional....and OF COURSE I just read where this president doesn't CARE what the SC said....

BUT HERE is the official response from the NLRB chairman...it is just what I would expect it to be.,.

www.laborrelationstoday.com

#119 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-28 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

My point was this: Monte was pretending that the final version of the bill was an olive branch to the GOP - it clearly wasn't.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ

It was clearly an attempt at compromise. Which the Republicans would have no part of. And while I have recently seen large cracks in their armor, so large that they have teetered on the verge of collapse, yet they still do not intend on compromising with this President.

Still seeking that mythical Waterloo.

At all costs.

Well here we are!

Waterloo!

"So how could I ever refuse?
I feel like I win when I lose!

Waterloo
Couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo
Knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo
Finally facing my Waterloo"

We have met our Waterloo and it is us.

#120 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-28 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort