HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Judge who ruled Obama vio...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:59 PM

Judge who ruled Obama violated constitution has history of right wing judicial activism

The judge who ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the constitution is a Jesse Helms crony who overturned the convictions of Oliver and John Poindexter and sided with Bush on indefinite detentions.

Judge David Bryan Sentelle was first appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan. Sentelle's history of right wing activism from the bench was detailed by Will Stabley, “However, Sentelle was promoted to the United States Appeals Court shortly after, as a circuit court judge, he voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter – two key Reagan aides who had been found guilty in the Iran Contra scandal. This seeming tit for tat between Sentelle continued as he appointed Kenneth Starr to the role which Starr would go on to use in his overtly aggressive impeachment case against democrat Bill Clinton…Sentelle then went on to side with republican George W. Bush on the issue of indefinite detention without the right to trial, in a controversial ruling which saw even a fellow judge on his own panel dissenting against him.”

He is also a member of the Federalist Society a group that describes itself and its role as, “Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.”

http://www.politicususa.com/judge-ruled-obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-history-wing-judicial-activism.html#comment-244531

34 replies, 3273 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge who ruled Obama violated constitution has history of right wing judicial activism (Original post)
okaawhatever Jan 2013 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2013 #1
brush Jan 2013 #17
Igel Jan 2013 #21
Historic NY Jan 2013 #2
elleng Jan 2013 #3
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #4
no_hypocrisy Jan 2013 #5
onenote Jan 2013 #7
malaise Jan 2013 #28
onenote Jan 2013 #32
DallasNE Jan 2013 #20
no_hypocrisy Jan 2013 #30
bluestateguy Jan 2013 #6
onenote Jan 2013 #9
freshwest Jan 2013 #8
moman Jan 2013 #10
Old Codger Jan 2013 #11
marble falls Jan 2013 #12
onenote Jan 2013 #33
marble falls Jan 2013 #34
SoapBox Jan 2013 #13
samsingh Jan 2013 #14
starroute Jan 2013 #15
starroute Jan 2013 #16
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #18
Takket Jan 2013 #19
Igel Jan 2013 #22
WillyT Jan 2013 #23
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #24
Ian Iam Jan 2013 #25
graham4anything Jan 2013 #26
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #27
B Calm Jan 2013 #29
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #31

Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:05 PM

1. Oh, wonderful.

How do we get rid of him?

Impeach?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:47 PM

17. Can't this decision be appealed? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:52 AM

21. Of course it can .

To either the full court ("en banc") or to the Supreme Court.

It will be appealed.

However, it wasn't Sentelle's ruling, it was (depending on what part of the ruling you look at) anonymous by 3 judges or a 2-1 split (that would be the part about the verb "happen").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:13 PM

2. David Sentelle is the poster boy for right wing judicial activism.

interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:17 PM

3. This was not ONE JUDGE, this was a unanimous decision of a 3-judge panel.

'Sentelle, joined by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Thomas B. Griffith, said that the Constitution’s reference to “the Recess” means that appointments are allowed only during the recess between sessions of the Senate, not when the Senate is simply on a break. It was not up to the president to decide what constitutes a recess, Sentelle said.

The ruling noted that another federal appeals court has read the Constitution differently, which adds to the likelihood the Supreme Court will have to settle the issue. . .

NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said the board, which now has only three members, will continue with business as usual.

“It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals,” Pearce said in a statement on the board’s Web site.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/25/court-obama-nlrb-recess-appointments-unconstitutional/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:22 PM

4. Sentelle was the senior judge. All 3 were republican appointees and the 3rd judge didn't affirm the

entire ruling, and even Sentelle notes how this is different than previous rulings. Total activism. He answered a question not even posed in the initial lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:26 PM

5. Any judge a Bush recess appointee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:46 PM

7. recess appointments only last until the end of the next session of Congress

So, no. And none of President Obama's other recess appointees are still serving as recess appointees. Only the two NLRB board members and Cordray. If their appointments are ultimately upheld (as I believe they should be), their appointments would expire at the end of this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:05 AM

28. Cordray has just been nominated again by Obama n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:01 AM

32. Correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't extend his appointment

Unless the repubs filibuster of Cordray can be overcome, his term will expire at the end of the year. While the President could give him another recess appointment (which would trigger another legal battle over whether it was a valid recess appointment), the DOJ has interpreted the statute governing the conditions under which a recess appointment can be paid as not allowing payment to a recess appointee who receives successive appointments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:07 AM

20. I Researched That

And Bush made 2 recess appointments of Judges, Charles Pickering and William Pryor.

Pickering served for one year as a recess appointment then chose to resign rather than have Bush bring his name up again.

Pryor server for 16 months as a recess appointment and Bush then re-nominated him and a deal was struck with Senate Democrats to allow 3 names to get an up or down vote, I believe in exchange for 3 other names being withdrawn (from memory). Pryor came up for a vote and was confirmed with 53 votes and serves yet today as a Judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:30 AM

30. Thanks for the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:32 PM

6. Just ignore the ruling and do it anyway

What are they going to do. Are they going to stop him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:48 PM

9. The court's order vacates a single decision

It doesn't enjoin the two recess appointees from continuing to serve. However, that would be the next step for a party with a case before the Board: seek to enjoin it from acting. And if that injunction is granted and not stayed, its not going to be ignored. My guess, however, is that there is a good chance that any attempt to prevent the NLRB from taking action going forward either will fail or will be stayed by the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:48 PM

8. OMG!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:48 PM

10. A good friend of

Jesse Helms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:12 PM

11. This is what the constitution says on that

Article. II.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:42 PM

12. Is he 100 years old yet? Reagan appointed him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:04 AM

33. He's 69. He was appointed by Reagan in 1987 when he was 43.

I believe he is going on "senior status" next month, although I haven't double checked that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:35 AM

34. He could be on the bench 10 or more years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:15 PM

13. Whatever...

The guy reeks of PukeBagger Bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:21 PM

14. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:40 PM

15. That Ken Starr business was particularly nasty

Yeah, that's the same Citizens United. It all comes round.

http://www.archive-publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-20.html

Judge David Sentelle, who was one of the three judges appointed to oversee the selection of the independent prosecutor, was instrumental in the decision to fire the previous prosecutor and appoint Starr. Shortly before Starr's appointment, Sentelle lunched with Senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth, who had been demanding a new prosecutor. Faircloth later hired David Bossie as a personal aide on the Senate Whitewater Committee. Bossie previously worked with Floyd Brown at Citizens United where he helped compile the book, Slick Willie, and has been a long-time anti-Clinton investigator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:45 PM

16. And a little more

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020513Livemore.html

Chief Justice Rehnquist, for instance, according to Joe Conason and Gene Lyons in "The Hunting of the President," ignored certain provisions of the Independent Counsel Act in order to appoint to the Special Division (the three-judge panel that appoints the Independent Counsel) Judge David Sentelle, a conservative ideologue (and also a member of the CNP) who earned his first judicial appointment from Ronald Reagan after campaigning heavily for Reagan and Jesse Helms.

A former Republican Party chairman in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sentelle had relatively little judicial experience; yet while the Independent Counsel Act directed the Chief Justice to give priority in appointing judges to the Special Division to senior circuit judges and retired justices, Rehnquist ignored this directive and instead appointed Sentelle, who he knew would fulfill what was expected of him: to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate President Clinton who had what we might expect Rehnquist also felt was the correct world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:49 PM

18. Wow, read the whole article. It seems like the federalist society was the early tea party. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:54 PM

19. recess

Sentelle says it is not up to the President to decide what a recess is. Is it up to the Senate?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/recess.htm

The senate's own glossary defines a recess and it is NOT just a break between sessions. Sentelle is basing his argument on the word "the" before "recess" in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:57 AM

22. There are three "actors" involved.

The President, the Senate, and the Constitution.

The Senate can't override the Constitution. As far as things not determined by the Constitution that pertain to the Senate, then it's up to the Senate. That whole messy "co-equal" and "separation of powers" nonsense.

Danged inconvenient.

If it's up to the Senate, then the NRLB and Cordray appts. are still unconstitutional. It's not like this kind of pro-forma session has a long history, but it was deemed incontrovertible when a (D) Senate did it under *.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:58 AM

23. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:08 AM

24. This was an easy one to call. No Repub judge was going to turn on Bush and no Dem

 

would turn on Obama. They all take care of their own. Too bad we the people can't be considered part of the family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:19 AM

25. Personally, I am shocked by this!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:44 AM

26. Sabatoge, 3rd party John Anderson and fracture allowed Reagan in

 

Nixon sabatoged LBJ's peace talks
Bush/Reagan sabatoged Jimmy Carter's hostage release (and who knows, some say the helicopters themselves were sabatoged by friends)

John Anderson ran 3rd party and took 7 percent (mostly from democratic side)

Fracture between the party

NEVER again on any of these three

we should never have a primary season again, we should know going in who is the candidate
we should never have anyone with democratic goals in mind voting for those that will not caucus with us, or will cause enough voters to leave (ala Nader causing 10 million to stay at home saying both the same, don't bother)
we should (and now it will) be evident if there are dirty tricks/sabatoge
(ala the recount stopped by professional republican agitators, NOT common people protesting.)

Reagan was elected (VERY CLOSE ELECTION up til the last week and popular vote not that great though electoral was).

Those that sold LBJ and Jimmy down the river, well we got Nixon/Reagan/Ford/Bush/Bush and Jeb is waiting in the wings

Those have themselves to blame.
To protest a vote gets Reagan

and judges like this
and corporate personhood from judges like Roberts and Alito

Did you expect the other side to care about what we want?
(do we care what they want?)

you gotta play the game and you gotta be on the game 24/7/365
(for those that say, let's hold off talking about 2016 til 2015...yeah, the repubs already know what they want in 2013,14,15,and 2016

no, let's not hold off.

let's get the game fully played out before it happens
with a victory to continue Barack Obama's first two terms in 2016.(Hillary45).

because it has to be a landslide

and we have to win back the courts, win back the house, keep the senate and win the governorships

the democrats did NOT lose to MORE republicans voting.
They lose when they sit at home, or vote for candidates who CANNOT win as a protest
(and don't caucus) including Meeks in Florida. He never stood a chance and was not put up as a realistic candidate because the ones that could have did not run that year.That is why Crist in Florida was the rare exception because he could have won with full democratic support, as he was the reason they put up Meeks knowing Meeks couldn't beat Charlie.
They just didn't expect Rubio to slander Charlie and win. No one expected that that year.

other than a rare time like that NEVER vote for a Nader, a Perot or a Paul or a John Anderson.

those voters got what they deserved. and should be banished from whining.

BTW-
Nixon said anything a President does is legal (unless someone says it is not).

Well, a judge appointed by Reagan did what a judge appointed by Reagan would do.
He said it is not.

Will SCOTUS themselves take this case and rule?
Will they rule the same?
Will they rule different?

Interesting other take on this- IF the judges rule with this, in the long run, it could work to the advantage IF the other side has the senate/house.
In effect, this could actually give a President more power to work with, (once the courts switch sides.)

Could this be another President Obama rope-the-dopes?
Or is this a time where well, it was tried and anyhow, the recess is a temp position to start off with, so not too much damage done.

INTERESTING other take too-
what if President Obama had recessed appointed Warren and that was tossed, but she had not run for office because the timing was different?

In the end, with Elizabeth Warren, can anyone say that President Obama did not rope the dopes again with what he magnificently did for her and for us and the country?

which is why even on issues where I might disagree with a personality, in the back of my mind,
I do try to hold to the philosophy that President Obama and his ten step ahead program
knows what he is doing and has played the game better than anyone ever.
(so while the JKerry sitatation galls me, I do think somehow, using his 10 step ahead, Mass.
will be better off in the long run, we may just not see it for a while, especially now that Kerry will be in, there was no war during Hillary's run, and any war will now be blamed on him and not her, looking ahead to 2016, that is a wonderful advantage President Obama gave us).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:01 AM

27. I agree with your position on how we need to get our act together now. I'm starting to work on that

next week. But back to the case. From all the articles i've read, Obama did not expect to lose that. The only problem they thought may arise is the time 3 days. Bush had made an appt. during a 10 day recess and I guess the dems took that to court. The court said any time over 3 days was legal. I think because the constitution says they can't go more than 3 days without calling a recess. I guess Obama went 3 days and a couple of hours. But anyway, the Judge gave an incredibly poor activist opinion. The reason responsible papers are talking about his doing away with 150 yrs of history is because he said the only recess during which a President can appoint is during THE recess, like the one between the 112th and 113th congress. He also added, though he wasn't asked to that the President can only appoint positions that have become vacant during the recess. The third judge wouldn't go along with that portion. Anyway, we can't rest on our laurels. The GOP is undoing this country. In Kansas, they're trying to switch the method of judicial appointments from a merit system they have to governor appointments. They're trying to remove all opposition to their radical policies. It's sickening. I'm up for a good fight between now and 2016, sound like you are too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:16 AM

29. So every president from George Washington

to Obama has been violating the constitution according to these three right wing fruitcakes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:27 AM

31. No surprise here. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread