Court rules Obama's appointments unconstitutional

[No Elephants]

Court rules Obama's appointments unconstitutional
By Aruna Viswanatha and Terry Baynes

Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:38pm EST

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama violated the U.S. Constitution when he used recess appointments to fill a labor board, in a sweeping decision that could limit presidential power to push through federal nominees.

The court found that the Senate was not truly in recess, for the purpose of a recess appointment, when Obama in January 2012 installed three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

The nominees were facing stiff Republican opposition, and the appointments caused an uproar at the time. Republicans argued that Obama undercut the Senate's power to confirm nominees because although most of its members were out of town, the Senate had not formally adjourned.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/26/us-usa-obama-appointments-idUSBRE90O0TG20130126

Ironic, that this fell at this time, given that Obama has made far fewer recess appointments than either Clinton or Bush.


When Kerry was running for President, he made some kind of public statement saying that he agreed that Bush had the power to make recess appointment but was objecting to some subsidiary issue.

My gut told me this could be wrong. So, at that time, I read up on recess appointments. I concluded that it was far from clear that Bush's appointments were Constitutionally permissible. (I've since forgotten why.)

So, I called Kerry's office and said that I would be voting for Kerry, but I was sorry that he had conceded, unasked, on the Constitutionality of Bush's appointments because I had looked into it and it seemed far from clear and settled.

Not only did the man in Kerry's office cut me off and not let me said one word about my rewasons, but he made his annoyance very clear and all but called me stupid.

Given that I had identified myself as a Kerry supporter, this was not especially helpful to his boss. And I wish that, today, I could shake this story under the arrogant know it all's nose. Because you know, that arrogant so and so will never remember he made a mistake.


I think the Court was wrong, though, to accept the fiction that the Senate is almost always in session. I don't remember that pretense going on before 2004, but maybe it did.


On the other hand, if the President can just do whatever he or she pleases whenever most of the Senate is out of town, that pretty much nullifies, as a practical matter, the Constitutional requirement of Senate advice and consent to nominees.

On the third hand, nothing in the Constitution requires NLRB board members to go through the Senate, or even the Chief of Staff. Both those offices are very different from, say, an ambassador, an office that the Constiution does mention.


IMO, the number of appointments that supposedly require Senate approval has gotten way out of hand--and that applies to all 3 of the hands I just mentioned.

Remember how much fun it was when we thought our government was sane, courteous and honest and actually trying to represent us?

Good times.

[Enthusiast]

1. This disgusts me.

Bush did any fucking thing he wanted, mostly. No problem.

I'm sure we'll end up with some pro-labor NLRB appointments. Not!

They are dead set on destroying organized labor in this nation.

[No Elephants]

2. No one sued Courts cannot do a thing until someone sues and the case

meets all the criteria for a federal court lawsuit set by the SCOTUS.


This decision is not only for Obama though, but for all Presidents.

I wish I remembered my original research. I don't feel like re-inventing that wheel, though.

[Enthusiast]

3. This decision won't apply to future Republican presidents.

It just won't.