Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
40. Nope. McConnell will twist the rules and take advantage of this ruling.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:37 PM
Nov 2014

Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama.

The court's first-ever case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess.

Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted.

Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.

The justices rejected that argument Wednesday.

The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees.

But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/supreme-court-recess-appointments_n_5533174.html

Said zero at first but lately he's being more aggressive ....said 100% BlueJazz Nov 2014 #1
You can't sign an executive order customerserviceguy Nov 2014 #8
I was thinking more of a "you scratch my back, we'll scratch yours" sort of deal. BlueJazz Nov 2014 #13
Not a chance. nt onehandle Nov 2014 #20
Probably not too bad vadermike Nov 2014 #2
Or somebody who only had a year to live. n/t. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #15
I LOL'd Cal Carpenter Nov 2014 #22
Republican senators would doubtlessly support a Roberts-, Alito-, Scalia-, Rehnquist-, Bork-type indepat Nov 2014 #3
I think they will block anyone, I mean anyone, Obama puts forward rurallib Nov 2014 #5
Correct. nt onehandle Nov 2014 #18
The magic would happen if he nominated Bill Clinton. MrScorpio Nov 2014 #4
President Clinton was disbarred. Doctor Who Nov 2014 #16
There's no requirement to be a practicing lawyer in order to sit on the Supreme Court MrScorpio Nov 2014 #21
True the only requirement is no requirement; you don’t even have to be a citizen IdiocracyTheNewNorm Nov 2014 #29
Deoends Skeowes28 Nov 2014 #6
Another thing those who stayed home didn't give a fig about. And, I have no idea. Cha Nov 2014 #7
Why did they stay home? Warren Stupidity Nov 2014 #11
I'll go with zero. Warren Stupidity Nov 2014 #9
Yep. nt onehandle Nov 2014 #19
It depends on the vacancy. He probably has 12-15 months left to fill a liberal seat. tritsofme Nov 2014 #10
I suspect the great compromise was harder to get than that HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #12
Uh...your poll offers choices but doesn't say what the choices are. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #14
On or Off. I or O. Yes or No. onehandle Nov 2014 #17
If the Repukes were to block a nominee for purely political reasons, it could create the possibility madinmaryland Nov 2014 #23
It would not really be a constitutional crisis tritsofme Nov 2014 #24
He could fill it easily... FreeJoe Nov 2014 #25
Nope. onehandle Nov 2014 #38
Yeah, that's all we need (dripping, grim sarcasm) woo me with science Nov 2014 #26
Exactly x 100000000000000000000000 SamKnause Nov 2014 #28
Over at ReaganDemocrats.com they think those are good things. nt bananas Nov 2014 #30
If he nominates another Sotomayor, zero. If he nominates another Kennedy, 100% DFW Nov 2014 #27
'McTurtle will shoot down ANY nominee' onehandle Nov 2014 #35
I thought you meant if he could fill it with himself, become a Supreme Court Justice himself. bananas Nov 2014 #31
Nah. I meant could he get a Justice approved. onehandle Nov 2014 #37
No chance SteveG Nov 2014 #32
Yep. nt onehandle Nov 2014 #36
100 percent bigwillq Nov 2014 #33
100% no wins for Obama Congress. onehandle Nov 2014 #34
Recess appointment for 2 years. NYC Liberal Nov 2014 #39
Nope. McConnell will twist the rules and take advantage of this ruling. onehandle Nov 2014 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If a Supreme Court member...»Reply #40