Town Square

Post a New Topic

Supremes Strike Down Obama's Illegal Recess Appointments

Original post made by Judicial Review, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights, on Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme court's landmark case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous 9-0 decision ruling that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama imperiously and deliberately misused the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess when he knew the Senate was not in recess.

The problem is, the court said in its ruling that the Senate was not in recess when Obama acted validating what many Senators were saying all along and what most people with common sense obviously know.

Obama's lame and laughable argument was that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB. So His Majesty decided to disregard the Constitution because it was inconvenient for him to comply with it. Obama was most likely thinking "Why should I let the Constitution get in the way of my executing the duties of the president. I've got work to do and I am not going to let the Constitution interfere."

The Supremes, however, rejected Obama's specious argument on Wednesday. I just wonder how they kept from laughing out loud.

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

Comments (4)

Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jun 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Yes and one of the Justices said that ALL of the out of session appointments made since the beginning of our union were probably unconstitutional. Those made by both pugs and dems. [Portion removed.] Find something REAL to complain about Obama. There's plenty there.

Like this comment
Posted by GOP Hypocrisy
a resident of Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:04 am

Maybe the Senate should all have some 'sllab', and give EVERY NOMINEE A STRAIGHT UP OR DOWN VOTE.

None of this hiding behind procedural votes and filibusters.

Be a man about it. Take a stand - make a vote.

Listen to the following REPUBLICAN experts about being a man, taking a stand, and giving an up or down vote:

** Sen. Orrin Hatch

"...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." (Orrin Hatch discusses debate in Senate..., NPR, 5/19/05)

** Sen. Jon Kyl

"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote." (Kyl Calls for `Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees,' Capitol Hill Press Releases, 5/18/05)

** Sen. Rick Santorum

"The time has come for the Senate to reestablish that tradition, to end these destructive judicial filibusters and to give all judicial nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve." (Should the Senate end Filibusters When Considering Judicial Appointments, Duluth News Tribune, 4/25/05)

** Sen. John Cornyn

"And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat." (U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees, CQ Transcriptions, 5/9/05)

** Sen. Mitch McConnell

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." (Senators Durbin & McConnell Discuss Issues Facing the Senate, CNN, 5/22/05)

** Sen. Mitch McConnell

“What we’re talking about here is not the filibuster rule overall, but getting back to the practice of allowing judicial appointments for judge candidates who have a majority support in the Senate to have an up or down vote.” [CBS News, The Osgood File, 4/25/05]

** Sen. Jeff Sessions

"This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." (U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster, CQ Transcriptions, 3/15/05)

** Sen. Richard Burr

"But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." (Sen. Burr Speaks Out on Judicial Nominations, 4/20/05)

** Sen. Sam Brownback

"All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." (Sen. Brownback Issues Statement on Judicial Nominees, 5/24/05)

** Sen. John Thune

"However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor... Something is broken when you can't get a fair up or down vote, not because of qualifications or character, but because of politics." (Senators Find Good in Filibuster Agreement, AP, 5/24/05)

** Sen. Charles Grassley

"The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It's high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor." (Grassley: Give Judges a Fair Up or Down Vote, CQ, 5/23/05)

** Sens. Larry (bathroom prowler) Craig and Mike Crapo

"We are pleased that three of the President's judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes - it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." (Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal, 5/25/05)

** Sen. Jim DeMint

"My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote," (Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters, 4/20/05)

Senator Lyndsy (loafer) Graham:

“The big winners in this filibuster efforts [sic] are the special interest groups because it is much easier for a special interest group to control 41 Senators than a majority.” (U.S. Newswire, Nov. 18, 2003)

** Senator Jimmy (no science for me!) Inhofe:

“...who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required ... If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Inhofe said. [Senate Floor Speech, 3/11/03]

** Senator Diaper Vitter

“As U.S. Senators, it is our constitutional duty to give advice and consent when a president nominates individuals to the bench. I think that every nominee deserves a vote. It’s a matter of fairness.” [, "Vitter Supports Senate Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/19/05]

Hypocrites - one and all.

Like this comment
Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jun 27, 2014 at 11:09 am

pogo is a registered user.

Apparently there is no hypocrisy for any politician with a "d" after their name.

Like this comment
Posted by GOP Hypocrisy
a resident of Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
on Jun 27, 2014 at 11:45 am

"Apparently there is no hypocrisy for any politician with a "d" after their name."

Of course there is.

But the premise of HL's thread is about judicial and other appointments blocked by the republicans, with Obama making appointments while Congress is home for their frequent and extended breaks, often longer than ten days (see "do-nothing Congress" below, also: Web Link )

As President Obama said today: "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing."

Being obtuse, @Pogo, or have something to add? The first two responses spoke to the subject at hand - GOP blockage of appointments and the President's overcoming their blockage.

Perhaps you prefer HL's single sided dialogue of the deaf?


Web Link "With Memorial Day approaching, Congress is preparing to take a break from the unyielding demands of doing nothing. The Senate will be out next week. The House will take its breather the following week.

Having enacted 104 laws since early 2013, the 113th Congress is on track to break the previous record low of 283, set in 2011-12 by the 112th Congress. And with last fall's pointless government shutdown, the current Congress reached a level of dysfunction that the 112th never attained."

And before you take the easy potshot: "Wags like to quip that the nation is better off when Congress is away from Washington on one of its many recesses and "district work periods." There might be a kernel of truth in that, but there's nothing amusing about gridlock when two-thirds of all federal spending is on autopilot and serious issues are left to fester."

*** "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing."

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Nobu Palo Alto eyes next-door expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,689 views

The Comp Plan EIR--Pluses and Minuses
By Steve Levy | 11 comments | 763 views

Couples: Cultivate Love, Gottman Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 721 views

It's contagious
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 390 views