TNR: Cordray's Recess Appointment Sure Doesn't Look Constitutional To Me

[twa]

the court did not consider it a sham session,and went even farther

this was not the 'same' thing at all

[Larry]

1) Look like one heck of a big reach, here. They're labeling as unconstitutional, something that has been going on, without objection, for, what, 200 years?

2) That said, though, I can see the reasoning, too. Allowing the President to decide whether Congress is really in session or not is way too much power in the executive.

Taken to extreme, we'd have Presidents appointing people when Congress adjourns for the night.

3) And yes, twa, what the Republicans are doing is unprecedented, too. And yes, it is a sham. Created specifically for the purpose of creating this faux outrage.

(Which doesn't automatically mean that the Executive can do anything they want, to counter it, though.)

[skinsmarydu]

This is just like when the Republicans had control of the Senate and passed a rule saying that nothing could pass without a "super majority" of 60 and not the simple majority of 51, like it was ever since the start of this nation. This is the worst travesty and the main reason why Obama couldn't get anything done between 2009 and the 2010 elections.

And the main reason they'll obstruct everything he tries to do going forward.

The pseudo-outrage by the right about these recess appointments would ring far truer if they had not been perpetrating a sham "session" merely to keep Obama from doing the same thing many previous presidents had done. This ruling, if upheld, will be regretted by Republicans the next time they hold the executive office.

Which, in their current state of bull****, we hope never happens. They better get a new plan, in a hurry, if they're ever gonna get near what the people want.

[RedskinsFan44]

the court did not consider it a sham session,and went even farther

this was not the 'same' thing at all

The court went so much farther that the fact that it was a sham session is irrelevant. Not the same as what?

[Jumbo]

After reading this unfold over the last day or so, I had a few primary responses to it: ongoing disgust with 'the way things are done" in general, and how it will be the typical "noise" to flush out many lockstep talking-point-headed conservatives (as such always are brought home to me with more personal impact this last year in my current locale) who will "go" like wind-up dolls before learning more than the current headlines (or whatever Fox is feeding them these days).

I've become very bad. For months now, except in a blue moon, I don't even turn on Fox or MSNBC or even CNN anymore (in my house---I see Fox elsewhere), even just to check in so I know the current lay of the land with my own eyes/ears.

I also thought maybe some good can come from the three Republican-appointed "activist judges" attempting to block the admin's side of this farcical and pathetic old two-step. Maybe it will prompt some intelligent review and change.

[twa]

Second appeals court invalidates Obama's NLRB recess appointments

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ss-164150.html

A second appeals court has joined the D.C. Circuit in ruling that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, concluding that some board actions taken in the wake of those appointments were also invalid.

The issue has far-reaching implications for both the NLRB and other boards, including Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been a frequent target of conservatives and whose director was a recess appointment.

The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions. The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama tries to stop the bleeding)

The 3rd Circuit case centered on decisions the NLRB made on the authority of three members including Craig Becker, who was appointed by the president on March 27, 2010, while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.

The case was brought by a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitation center whose nurses were allowed to form a union by one such NLRB decision.

[Predicto]

Looks like Adler was right.

[Fergasun]

This is going to the Supreme Court. At least the 3rd Circuit dissenting opinion (which I didn't read all of) makes the case that I made that if we don't let any of these recess appointments stand, they can simply remove the recess appointment power which is in the Constitution. I expect nothing less than a 5-4 opinion in which Justices from both stripes go against previous precendent and other cases in which they ruled (with the exception of Thomas who seems to hold onto most of his judiciail biases consistently).

[twa]

wasn't the recess appointment power granted only for need?(when it was not possible as prescribed)

I would think it was in no way to be turned into a end around the Senate(blatantly so in this case)

[Fergasun]

So you're saying the Senate can block any appointment and grind things to a halt that way? From the reading of the most recent ruling, the Third Circuit seems to imply that even between sessions (i.e. between elections) the Senate isn't in recess.
At the same time the advise and consent law is in the Constitution, but it's not clear that the "advise and consent" means they can get filibustered.

[Larry]

Yeah, I fully expected a ruling along the lines of "the Senate is in recess when it says its in recess". That, to me, fits in with the Senate's constitutional power to write its own rules.

Got to admit I don't see where they're getting this "the Senate is never in recess, and we've been violating the constitution for 200 years" thing.

[twa]

Got to admit I don't see where they're getting this "the Senate is never in recess, and we've been violating the constitution for 200 years" thing.

where do you find that?

found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions.


---------- Post added May-18th-2013 at 07:16 AM ----------

So you're saying the Senate can block any appointment and grind things to a halt that way? .

while they are in session...yes