Court says Obama recess appointments invalid

Comments (48)
texas100 wrote:

Typical behavior from the dems…. Stacking the NLRB and then bringing frivilous ‘union friendly’ suits to pay back union campaign contributions…

Jan 25, 2013 12:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lateralgs wrote:

texas100, how ironic that you should post that comment. Check your facts. Fellow Texan George Bush made over 170 recess appointments during his tenure. By the way, nothing against Texas. I’m a Texan as well.

Jan 25, 2013 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

I know GW Bush has a lot of detractors, but even he was smart enough to know the meaning of the words “not in recess” when Harry Reid pulled the same trick (staying in session) on him during his presidency.

Jan 25, 2013 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

What is going on here? First I read a story that aboration is legally restricted on U.S. military bases and now a court has ruled against something our President who was just re-elected did something during recess that was INVALID?

I’m sure the Supremes will straighten thisout!

Jan 25, 2013 12:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jroliver wrote:

If the Senate wasn’t in recess what the hell have they been doing the last four years

Jan 25, 2013 1:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Well, it is a start. Either we have a Constitution or we don’t. I believe that the Constitution is the foundation of our national social contract, so if the courts won’t defend it within the construct of their oaths, we are left with no social contract and any means to maintain our freedoms is fair game. That would be a nightmare of the first order.

Jan 25, 2013 1:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gitmojo wrote:

Showcases the hypocrisy and corruption that this administration is famous for. Obama needs the board packed to facilitate the union money being dumped into the dems coffers.

Jan 25, 2013 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The very fact that the idiots in Congress would need so much time off is appalling to begin with. Although if they worked more we would probably be in 5x worse shape than we are.

Wonder if the courts can determine how long you have to be somewhere to actually call it “working”, or to be “in session”?

If they worked the 260-275 days we the people have to work, this recession appointment business would take care of itself. Then the courts could work on other things that actually matter.

Jan 25, 2013 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Maybe if the Senate would actually do their job, Obama would have not had to use the recess appointment. So what is wrong with actually having a head of the CFB?

Jan 25, 2013 2:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chume wrote:

Great Heading. What does “invalid” mean? Too left leaning to say UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Shockingly fair and balanced

Jan 25, 2013 2:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Republicans once again affirming that they are the party of “NO”.

Jan 25, 2013 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

I believe the Senate is controlled by the Dems. Isn’t that correct? Perhaps Harry should get on the ball.

Jan 25, 2013 2:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

What Obama did as president was ruled unconstitutional. Nothing more really needs to be said about the man.

Jan 25, 2013 2:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PetraD wrote:

This is about checks and balances and we do have them.

Jan 25, 2013 3:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@moonhill, You ever hear of this thing called the filibuster? just another rightie/Obama hater either being willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant. Sad, but not surprising.

Jan 25, 2013 3:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
noduh wrote:

Maybe its time this was used in the courts of law:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Jan 25, 2013 3:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
noduh wrote:

Texas was not a state in 1776!}

Jan 25, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jw_collins wrote:

Either way….recess appointments, filibuster rules, popular vs. electoral college…what goes around comes around. And the GOP has behaved as a collection of spoiled rotten bad losers. If they survive as a party, and there’s question, they eventually will win an important election, and I subscribe that there are many who will not forgive nor forget the childish display of behaviors that is now the GOP.

Jan 25, 2013 3:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RabidRighty wrote:

Maybe Congress should spend less time off…

Jan 25, 2013 3:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
John30303 wrote:

Does this mean – as it should – that these bureaucrats will have to return the perks and pay they received when they were “posing” and government employees?

-fat chance the taxpayers’d get a fair shake.

Jan 25, 2013 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
awakenactive wrote:

Patriot act, Ndaa, and killing American citizens no problem for the courts. But this appointment is breaking the constitution? All three branches of government are failing. It’s time to break out the tar and feathers.

Jan 25, 2013 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
randomone47 wrote:

“it contradicted 150 years of practice by both Democratic and Republican administrations”

As far as I’m concerned this ruling is about 150 years overdue. Senate confirms presidential appointments, this concept has been ignored for far to long. It really doesn’t matter that Bush did this, or Clinton, or Reagan, ect., it shouldn’t be done.

Jan 25, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jabberwolf wrote:

@USAPragmatist I agree kinda naive to say the least.
A fillibuster would be GREAT to see and point, THEN accuse the GOP of blocking government. But that hasnt happened. Instead, the democrats have tabled most issues, to prevent some of their own from possibly negotiation and voting on a bill that neither Obama or his stooge Reid would like. That rotten losers are the ones holding up due process: THE DEMOCRATS. So until you can point to fillibusters, you must face facts that the Democrats are the ones stopping due process.

Jan 25, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ForgivenGirl wrote:

There has to be a curb on executive power – I don’t care who is sitting in the oval office. One protection provided by the Constitution is a system of checks and balances; that is why there is a confirmation process. I just hope it holds up and the SC doesn’t strike it down.

Jan 25, 2013 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Amskeptic wrote:

moonhill wrote: “I believe the Senate is controlled by the Dems. Isn’t that correct? Perhaps Harry should get on the ball” This is the game plan of the Republicans . . . to conduct a record number of filibusters then claim that the Democrats “did nothing”. They have held up 170 Federal judge appointments, and they have blocked appointments to the ATF, the Consumer Protection Bureau, but most importantly, they have blocked EIGHTEEN jobs bills. These Republicans are blind in their asinine obstructionism, and all you have to do is listen to Bobby Jindahl mention at the republican retreat going on TODAY, “We have GOT to stop being the party of stupid.”

Jan 25, 2013 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@jabberwolf

Mitch McConnel tried to filibuster his OWN proposal for increasing the votes neede to pass “significant” legislation. Reid called his bluff said lets vote on it and Mitch twitched and dodged using a self-filibuster (I still thinks that’s illegal in Ky due to health concerns) to stop a vote on his own proposal.

In Obama’s first 1/2 term ther were close to 130 filibusters, and not the old-fashioned Strom Thurmond 28 hour kind, but the we’re all weenies and we won’t let anyone vote for cloture kind. The Filibuster has been used by both parites, yes the Dems did it to block Bush appointments several times, but the point is that as a tactic and point the filibuster destroys anyy hope of passing legislation or reaching compromise. And the Conservatives and their cronioes have used it to stall every process that has hit the floor that they don’t agree with. They refuse to compromise for the most part and simply stamp their feet and drag the Senate to a standstill.

Go red the history of the Senate, you’ll be able to see the amount of filibusters used, then if you don;t agree you can go all McConnel on us and argue that we can’t discuss what we’re arguing about because you started the argument.

This outdated and abused tactic from both sides has rendered any meaningfull action by the Senate impossible, and has morphed the Senate into a moving roadblock to progress.

Jan 25, 2013 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vhpeddler wrote:

Opps!!

Jan 25, 2013 4:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

jabberwolf wrote: “So until you can point to fillibusters, you must face facts that the Democrats are the ones stopping due process.”

110th Congress: 139 cloture motions
111th Congress: 137 cloture motions
112th Congress: 115 cloture motions

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

Gee, that was tough. I had to actually turn off my Fox News and Google some facts for a change. I almost broke a sweat there…

Jan 25, 2013 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AEDGBE wrote:

Its time to get down

Jan 25, 2013 4:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TOTL wrote:

King Obama is probably lying on the floor of the Oval Office, kicking his feet on floor and screaming about it not being fair that he can’t just do what he wants. After all, his idol and life long examples, Chicago mayors Richard Daley I and II would never let this happen! Of course, he doesn’t own the judges, unions, mobs, aldermen,… like they did.

Jan 25, 2013 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:

This isn’t over yet. Keeping a warm body around for a few minutes a day just to claim the Congress is not in recess is a sham. Without a quorum or enough members present to actually do any real business, that body is in recess whether they declare themselves to be in or not.

If this decision holds, there will never be any more recesses, period. All they need is one or two people to declare the body in session and close it down a minute later for each day while the other 99% of the members are out on recess.

That would work against any party residing in the White House, so closing this door because of a couple appointments is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s not a very smart move, unless the GOP truly believes that it will not be able to win the White House back again for several more election cycles (which may actually be true).

Jan 25, 2013 4:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

It seems to me that both sides play a lot of games. The Democrats complain about Republican filibusters and the Republicans complain that Harry Reid won’t even let many bills come up for a vote. There is enough blame for both parties to go around. To pretend that your party of choice is always right is ludicrous.

Jan 25, 2013 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:

Bobby Jindahl may be in the wrong party. The GOP goes after its own and tears them to shreads if a member dares to cross them too many times. Even Chris Christie took quite a beating from them for a week or so and he’s considered to be their best chance they have for 2016.

If Jindahl doesn’t get back in the fold and behave himself, he could end up as chub for the sharks.

Jan 25, 2013 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:

OK Right Wingers! Here’s your chance to impeach the President! You bastards.

Jan 25, 2013 4:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

All the reason why Congress should follow the model used by a majority of states–where they are in session a finite number of days each year (typically 90 – 120 days consecutively) and then they go home to their real jobs. That way, they don’t create legislation to fill the available time to the detriment of the citizens.

The primary task would be to produce and finalize a budget. The remainder of their time would be spent addressing critical legislation–and bills that cannot make it through committee in timely manner, die. We could pay them half of what we currently do, they could eliminate most/all of their staffs, and it would force them to focus on important issues–and “comprehensive” legislation would be impossible to pass. Plus, all the lobbyists in D.C. would die-off as well.

Shorten the session and you will eliminate a lot of the corruption that results of a full time legislature (see CA, NY, IL…) The legislature of “citizens” was never intended to support career politicians. Plus, if they had to go back home and work, they might better understand the impact of the legislation they pass (which they often exempt “members of Congress”)

Just think–Boehner would go back to medicine, and Harry Reid would go back to ….(just what did Harry Reid do?) Politics as a career would no longer be an option and we would all be better off for it.

Jan 25, 2013 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Catspaw113 wrote:

Obama -Unconstitutional?? SHOCKER! This is just the beginning. The man has continually violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. He believes his ‘progressive’ ideology should replace it. He only believes in half of this country; those who agree with him. Everyone else must have selfish or evil motives.

Jan 25, 2013 5:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sae-sho wrote:

just for the record, i was born in san antonio,tx. but this is a new and disturbing trend. as long as 2 republicans show up once a day and blow their nose and leave, the president can get nothing done. if there is no quorum, no role call, no gavel strike, the house IS NOT IN SESSION

Jan 25, 2013 5:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
zy-yz wrote:

Obama, former constitutional law professor, had no clue he was acting as an “Imperial President” … his mind was so filled with conlaw facts/precedents/theory, that it just never occurred to him. What a Brilliant Man, so busy and important. What would we do without Him.

Question: which OTHER constitutional law professor had his mind SO filled with detailed conlaw facts/precedents/theory, that he was no longer certain whether receiving fellatio from a female intern under a White House desk, and then him consequently “depositing genetic material” (of the sticky kind) onto said fellatrice’s dress, constituted “sex” or not?

Bonus points if you guess the political party affiliation of the aforementioned two former Constitional Law Professors. Hint: they both belong to the same political party.

Jan 25, 2013 5:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MyHeadHurts wrote:

“..meeting every few days for minutes at a time but accomplishing no work..”

The court is correct. Sounds like congress was in session as usual.

Jan 25, 2013 6:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@mikemm Chris Christie is no where near the best choice in 2016 for the GOP. In fact he’s a terrible choice. He will turn out the vote worse than both McCain and Romney managed to do, which is exactly why the MSM is pushing for him as the most viable republican candidate.

Jan 25, 2013 6:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kalberg wrote:

I recall reading that when Obama was a university professor his specialty was Constitutional Law; I gather that it mustn’t have been US Constitution he was lecturing.

Jan 25, 2013 7:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@gitmojo and the like

President Bush made 29 recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned for 14 days or less—including John Bolton, the controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, who was blocked by Senate Democrat – (and for very good reason)

see http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-abuse-power-argument-recess-appointments/story?id=18317935

while this is a strategy that has gone on for a long time on both sides. Republicans seem to think that they should be the only ones to gain from it. The Republican party does f-all for 4 years, and when the Democrat party plays the game the way they do, then they/you scream, “foul!” Who’d the real hypocrit, here?

Jan 25, 2013 7:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Cool… side note lower my taxes!

Jan 26, 2013 5:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Cool… side note lower my taxes!

Jan 26, 2013 5:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Cool… side note lower my taxes!

Jan 26, 2013 5:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Cyberblunt wrote three times: “Cool… side note lower my taxes!”

Side note: Click “Post Comment” once please.

Jan 26, 2013 4:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

Wow. Once again the hate and vitriol coming from the liberal posters would make even a black panther member blush.

You guys really need to switch to decaff in the mornings…

Jan 31, 2013 10:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

Quoting the article: “Obama appointed the NLRB members while the Senate was holding “skeleton” sessions set up to keep it from going into recess.”

More obstructionism, and now that a precedent has been set, the door can swing both ways. Don’t forget that, Republicans.

I’m hopeful it will be the catalyst for logically defining what constitutes a recess and what doesn’t, and it could mean that Congress might actually have to work while they hold office.

This type of obstructionism by some members of Congress is bordering on a “soft” coup. The rules have to change now.

Jan 31, 2013 11:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.