SCOTUS rules against Obama’s recess appointments: so what?
That unanimity is highly unusual, and it shows how very egregious Obama’s actions were when he made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in what’s known as pro forma sessions, and tried to treat it as though that constituted a recess.
It’s a little bit of a check to Obama’s power grabs. Emphasis on that “little bit,” because the irony is that it doesn’t really matter any more. The Democrats finessed that, playing the Republicans for fools for trusting them.
Here’s how it went down:
[Canning’s] impact was lessened, though, when the Senate Republicans agreed last July to allow a full slate of five of President Obama’s nominees to the NLRB as part of a deal to avert a change in the chamber’s filibuster rules. Big Labor had leaned hard on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to confront the GOP over the NLRB vacancies.
Reid then went ahead and eliminated the Senate filibuster for most presidential nominations anyway in November, ensuring that a minority of 40 lawmakers cannot prevent a vote.
The two actions effectively addressed the two major issues at the heart of the case: whether the NLRB had a working quorum and whether the president can get his appointees considered by the Senate.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does settle some of the constitutional issues surrounding presidential appointments as well as the validity of the disputed NLRB’s rulings. But the things that Big Labor really wanted, it already has.
The cynic in me wonders whether, if these things hadn’t happened and the SCOTUS ruling mattered more, the liberal judges would have ruled as they did, or whether they would have found a way to give Obama what he wanted.
And of course, if Republicans get control of the Senate in 2014 and then the presidency in 2016, the Democrats may regret the end of the filibuster for appointments.
If.
He has already demonstrated his respect for the court, during the SOTU address.
He won’t care. Neither will Holder or Jarrett or Podesta.
Neither will his acolytes in the press.
Rush brought up something today. He pointed out that there was another ruling, 5 – 4, that has some pretty shocking implications. If I understand it correctly, the gist of it is that if a president flouts the Constitution often enough in a particular way, and the Congress doesn’t object strenuously enough, the president’s actions will become “constitutional” by default.
Did I just see a huge old barn door swing wide open?
Quotes from Scalia’s and Breyer’s opinions at the Politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347.html?hp=t1
Up at National Review right now: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012
How many divisions does SCOTUS have?
I believe that Reid’s termination of the filibuster will be his signature action.
It’s actually set the groundwork for rolling back Big Government.
At all times prior (since 1933) the Conservatives have never had the super majority in the Senate and the control of the government. So, whatever had been passed to expand Big Government was impossible to roll back. Every attempt was crushed by the filibuster.
&&&
We are entering shallow seas.
At any point ahead, the ship of state could be grounded.
I would expect to see wholesale changes in Federal priorities under the pressure of the crisis to come.
As Maliki how fast they can break.
Bev, I’d like the hear an answer to that question myself. With intellectual property, rights holders can lose protections for their marks if they don’t vigorously attempt to defend them against illegal use. Similar laws exist in other areas of commercial law, I believe. But just how would Congress defend its powers when, for instance, in many instances it doesn’t have standing to sue the executive? Is a heated Congressional hearing or press conference sufficient or sternly worded letter? I can’t believe the founders would have intended that commonplace turf wars be settled, in each case, through impeachment proceedings. And could a Congress and White House controlled by a single party then willingly conspire to cede most of its powers to a dictatorial executive simply by not challenging any of the executive’s actions? That doesn’t sound right to me, but … not much sounds right to me these days, but it happens anyway.
The unions are a way for the executive to create an independent funding source, via money laundering, that Congress cannot stop or regulate. Without Congress’ power of the purse and without the SC’s Constitution, the Executive branch becomes the most powerful in war time.
When the donks lose the senate in November, Reid will just unilaterally reinstate the filibuster before January.
Ah, I just clicked Bev’s link. So it seems the majority is saying that executives have gotten away with these fast and loose sorts of recess appointments for centuries (since the founding), so the fast and loose practices are now “tradition” and thus, can be judicially blessed with a few modifications. Not great, but less alarming than enabling one president to take adverse possession of powers ceded by a few ineffectual legislatures.
“if Republicans get control of the Senate in 2014 and then the presidency in 2016, the Democrats may regret the end of the filibuster for appointments.”
Not to worry, the fix is in.
The GOP is doing all it can to pass amnesty for 11-33 million undocumented democrats and if they manage to pass it before the November elections, conservatives are going to have a hard time seeing the purpose to voting for RINOs.
But the ‘cherry on top’ is widespread voter fraud. Turns out that;
6.9 million multiple voters in 28 states, report finds
Geoffrey Britain:
I will go on record as saying I will be very surprised if they pass amnesty before November. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen; it could. But I do not think it will happen.
What might happen is that they might pass a “first step” which will involve securing the border. And the Senate won’t pass it, so it will go nowhere.
What I fear is that Obama will finesse them by passing amnesty by executive order. See this and also this. That is the threat: do it, or Obama will go it alone.
He is out of control, and he and the Democrats see their chance to bypass the legislative process entirely and get what they want: their foolproof, permanent majority. They’re playing a very different game from the usual one.
neo,
That’s a very plausible scenario and one the GOP might covertly cooperate with, as it would put all the political heat for amnesty on Obama.
At what point do Obama’s edicts and proclamations become a de facto ‘soft’ dictatorship? If voting is reduced to an outright, undeniable farce, what allegiance do we owe our former government? When majority rule becomes the tyranny of the majority, upon what basis can the claim that the American Republic still exists be made?
Clearly that tipping point is not yet here but I fear we are getting perilously close to it. The ‘very different game’ Obama and the Democrats are playing has the potential to effectively destroy our nation’s social contract and if that happens, all bets are off.
FYI
“Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 — thirteen – cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund
IMO BHO made a big mistake in encouraging hordes of diseased children and MS-13 gangbangers to crash the border. The House will never go for the “comprehensive” senate bill. Even the speaker knows that will not fly. Heck, California and Massachusetts towns don’t want to accept these children and dangerous teenagers in their towns.