Court rules Obama's appointments unconstitutional

Comments (38)
sandman839 wrote:

Screw it, next time the senate is truly on recess then fill all the posts they are trying to block.

Jan 25, 2013 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nhirsch wrote:

oh so what. every president has played that trick during recess and so the GOP successfully claimed they were not in recess despite the fact that most of them were out of washington. big deal

Jan 25, 2013 8:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The senate has been in recess now for years time to wake up and smell the roses.
Obama has out played the GOP on each and every issue lets see if he is successful with the magots of our society the NRA.

Jan 25, 2013 8:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TxCharlie wrote:

So in other words, he violated his SECOND MOST IMPORTANT duty in office, which is protecting the Constitution (protecting the US from enemies foreign and domestic being his first priority) – He’s a constitutional lawyer, so I have no doubt that he violated it knowingly and deliberately.

When is Congress going to get off their duffs and impeach this guy???

Jan 25, 2013 8:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rokid wrote:

Do the Republicans think Americans are going to put up with their obstructionism indefinitely?

Jan 25, 2013 8:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mcj3691 wrote:

I wonder what this same court would have had to say about all of George W. Bush’s recess appointments?……. my guess: nothing.

Jan 25, 2013 8:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sae-sho wrote:

you are telling me that any 2 republican senators can show up, blow their nose, and leave, leaving the work of our nation in the balance?no no, a thousand times no, vote the bastards out

Jan 25, 2013 10:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Sounds like the GOP managed to pay off a judge to give credence to their “Sour Grapes”. This will fall in appeals. They weren’t in session, because there wasn’t a quorum. Obama’s actions are not unconstitutional.

Jan 25, 2013 11:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bocomojoe wrote:

Bush and Reagan both made several times more recess appointments than Obama. Why were theirs not unconstitutional, and all of a sudden Obama’s are? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Conservative judges supporting conservative Presidents. Time to replace some partisan judges and return the country to a democracy.

Jan 25, 2013 11:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tmb97 wrote:

Maybe if Congress actually was at work, like, EVER, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

Jan 26, 2013 12:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmb97 wrote:

Maybe if Congress actually was at work, like, EVER, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

Jan 26, 2013 12:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmb97 wrote:

Maybe if Congress actually was at work, like, EVER, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

Jan 26, 2013 12:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
DeannaTx wrote:

@merlinsscience,
Firstly Reid didn’t ‘create’ pro forma. Pro forma was introduced in the British House of Commons in 1558. Pro forma has been in place here in the US for the last 180 years and used during every administration. You’re right in that Reid used it also, although quite differently than how it’s being used now. I know its nice to think you have a gotcha moment but the full facts of its past use compared to how its been used the last few years takes away the gotcha. I was hoping someone would bring this up.
What makes its use different this time is several unprecidented elements. Those being:
1. No Senate body has ever in US history attempted to stay in pro forma session for the lengthy periods this particular Senate minority has. Never, not once. Pro forma is intended to be used for a few days not repeated with each call being made from afar.
2. Historically (as in Reids case when he used it once in 2007 and once in 2008) the Senate minority announces they are in pro forma session and its duration (again normally a few days)at the beginning of it. In this particular case it was retroactively announced after the President had made appointments.
3. Pro forma was never intended to be useed and hasn’t been used as a continual method to block a President from making any recess appointments as it has been the past several years. It’s use has been sparce.
Your example of Reid having used it is interesting in that Reid used it twice. Just twice and for very short durations, as its intended to be used. This particular Senate minority has used it over a hundred times in one Presidential term (the last) and appears to be continuing to grossely abuse a tool given them which was intended to be used sparingly.
The fact they retroactively announced they had been in nultiple consecutive pro forma sessions is completely unacceptable and beyond shady.
You call Obama a monarch but have you forgotten our last Bush era and how badly our Constitution was trampled over? Have you so quickly forgotten the former VP Cheney went on world television and announced he and then President Bush weren’t held to American law.. that they were “above the law”? If we ever had an attempted Monarchy it was then. During those two terms there were more bills passed and appointments made during the times the Senate was in recess than during any previous Presidency. Ever.
To note: Over the last 180 years pro forma has been on the books for the Senate to use there have been hundreds of recess appointments made by Presidents.
Former President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. Former President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments (the most ever by any sitting President), and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
On January 25, 2013 three of those appointments were ruled unconstitutional by a court of appeals.

Are you sure you want to talk about who may have attempted a Monarchy?

Jan 26, 2013 1:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Wait for it.

Jan 26, 2013 2:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
Eric.Klein wrote:

This ruling contradicts past rulings and should be challenged.

Just at it claims that the President can not play a loophole, the Senate should not be able to play one either. Not going to recess and meeting a few min. each day, while most members were out of town, sounds like they were playing obstructionist politics.

Jan 26, 2013 5:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
Mandoist wrote:

FACT: Presidents from both parties have made hundreds of recess appointments when the Senate has failed to act on nominations. Ronald Reagan holds the record with 243. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made 105, and it was during his term that Senate Democrats began holding pro-forma sessions, some lasting less than a minute, when the Senate went on break. They contended that that kept the Senate in session and did not allow Bush to make recess appointments. Republicans took up the practice when Obama was elected.

Politicians (and mediocre mainstream media) need to stop playing Political Party Games and get to work on saving the country. In case you haven’t noticed, that sun is setting.

This judge is obviously not Supreme Court material. His justifications for his lame ruling will be laughed off the S.C. steps.

Jan 26, 2013 6:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
libertyville wrote:

The uppity judges just threw the Magna Carta into King Obama’s face.

Jan 26, 2013 7:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
TruthSociety wrote:

If the National Labor Relations Board ignores and defies this Federal Courts ruling than it is time for the House of Representatives to defund its operation.

Jan 26, 2013 8:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
TruthSociety wrote:

The difference between other recess appointments and Obamas unprecedented appointments is that Obama declared by himself that the Congress was in recess not the congress. A President does not have the power to declare when the congress is or is not in recess. Otherwise anytime there is a break for lunch, weekend or holiday the President could twist the intentions of the rule. In which case there would never be a separation of powers.

Jan 26, 2013 8:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Johan-Doh wrote:

Who cares if Reps and Dems both do it. If its unconstitutional, that’s it. End of Discussion.

Jan 26, 2013 9:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:

Good! Everyone knew those “recess appointments” we’re bogus. Now Boeing can file suit so they can open that plant in South Carolina , a Right to Work state.

Jan 26, 2013 9:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

Good news!

I recent years, the executive brance, regardless of the political party in office, has arrogated more and more power, defeating the balance of powers prescribed by the constitution.

One hopes the Federal courts will continue its proper rebalancing.

Jan 26, 2013 9:51am EST  --  Report as abuse

So if this holds up will the appointments made under previous presidents be invalid as well?

Jan 26, 2013 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rollo2 wrote:

Obama will take this to the Supreme Court were his buddy, John Roberts, will overturn the lower court. The old “co equal branch” stuff no longer exists. Boenher and Roberts have joined Obama in sticking it to the Constitution and citizens.

Jan 26, 2013 10:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
mpaulson84 wrote:

When Obama singed the NDAA of 2012, the single most unconstitutional legislation ever created, that amounts to a presidential power grab. The Supreme court does noting. But, we he makes some recess appointments, the supreme court throws them out? Are you kidding me? Please don’t tell me I’m the only one pissed about this. Also those of you that are giving the Supreme court kudos for a job well done should look at the bigger picture.

Jan 26, 2013 10:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

The court got it right, the exuctive branch has been breaking constitutional laws for decades with actions like this. It is time to rebalance the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Jan 26, 2013 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

The courts are the peoples friend in this one. It’s not just Obama that needs to be stopped. It’s all the Presidents that come after him who want to push their own agenda against the will of the people (aka congress) a la Chavez.

Liberals and conservatives should both be heralding this decision.

Jan 26, 2013 2:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse

When has the “Obama Admin.” operated WITHIN THE LAW???”.

Jan 26, 2013 4:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Whaddah wanna bet that the “VAST” majority of the people out here who had voted for (OBAMA) are the SAME ONES WHO ARE GETTING FREE STUFF, especially those who’ve contributed absolutely NOTHING to the (SYSTEM!!!)

Jan 26, 2013 4:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USA4 wrote:

TruthSociety seems to be the only one to get the key facts right- the president (regardless of party) can’t just decide for himself if congress is in recess or not- and, it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it why this is the case. the fact that obama tried to get away with it is indicative of his views of himself (and strangely, his lack of understanding of the Constitution- how was this guy a professor of constitutional law? he must have received that position as a result of something other than competence…)

Jan 26, 2013 5:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

This means every President’s recess appointments, are not valid. That means laws enforced by regulators and people sentenced by judges can be set free because those judges are not valid. All of them currently serving, appointed by Presidents from all time. Murderers, rapists, crooks, terrorists, all trials by judges appointed in recess are now void.
Take that and eat it Obama haters.
Taste good, or bitter?

Jan 26, 2013 7:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gigimoderate wrote:

This seems a bit political since this judge is the one that appointed the one and only Kenneth Starr that went after Bill Clinton!

Jan 26, 2013 8:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@americanguy

That is not what this means, the article was pretty clear about what it meant. Maybe you should read it before going on an I love everything Obama does rant. It is a good judgement that will affect both Republican and Democrat Presidents going forward.

“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.

In a surprisingly broad ruling, the three-judge panel rejected not only the NLRB appointments but any made while the Senate is in session but on a break. That could limit recess appointments to only a few weeks a year.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also ruled that recess appointments could only be used for positions that become vacant while the Senate is in recess.”

Jan 26, 2013 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
monarchist2 wrote:

What part of “recess” don’t they understand? Send the little children out for some fresh air. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse this by a large margin.

Jan 27, 2013 2:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

With a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate in 2005 GW Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton as our Ambassador to the U.N. after 5 months of arm wrestling with Congress. The majority leader in the Senate defended the appointment. One of the most controversial recess appointments in our lifetime. The only difference is that this time Congress tried using a gimmick, claiming they were not in recess when in fact they were. That is the angle that I would guess the Supreme Court would look at this thing from. Some here will try and argue that point since they left 1 or two congressman behind. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this matter. Lower courts frequently get overturned, so before anyone jumps on the Obama violated the Constitution band wagon lets wait and hear what the SC has to say. I’m betting that the U.S. Court of Appeals overstepped their bounds when they said that “recess appointments could only be used for positions that become vacant while the Senate is in recess.” If that were the case, then GW’s appointment of Bolton would have been illegal as well.

Jan 27, 2013 4:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
DDearborn wrote:

Hmmm

SO warrantless spying, breaking and entering, tresspass,; indifinte detention without due process; assasination, free speech zones, gun free zones are all Constitutional but a violation of Congressional procedures is a violation and must be immediately struck down? People something has gone terribly wrong with our government.

Jan 27, 2013 8:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
funny44 wrote:

That’s King B plays it! Don’t need no Congress! No Sir!

Jan 27, 2013 6:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@xyz2055

” I’m betting that the U.S. Court of Appeals overstepped their bounds when they said that “recess appointments could only be used for positions that become vacant while the Senate is in recess.” If that were the case, then GW’s appointment of Bolton would have been illegal as well.”

GW’s appointment was illegal. The legislative and judicial branches need to start taking power back from the executive branch. I am not saying that because Obama is President, I am saying for both parties. Every President from Washington onward has expanded the powers of the executive branch. It has gone well beyond what is constitutional.

Jan 27, 2013 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.