Supreme Court casts skeptical eye on Obama's appointment power

Comments (13)
Bighammerman wrote:

I am guessing that the Justices are beginning to see that Obama is trying to destroy the country. If they flip suddenly it means that they and their families have been threatened. Never under estimate the viciousness of the Obama machine. Look at what he did to Feinstein and Booker, silencing them before the election. Obama is the most dangerous item to the security and freedom of the U.S. that there is at this point in time.

Jan 13, 2014 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RevJohn wrote:

It’s Nixon or Obama. We must rein in the imperial Presidency.

Jan 13, 2014 9:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
valwayne wrote:

This is really a very clear cut case. Our founding father only gave the President the power to nominate key members of his Government. For them to take office they required that the Senate advise and CONSENT to those nominations. The only reason they allowed the President to make recess appointments was because once Congress recessed, with travel time in the 1700s, it would be months before everybody could return and be back in session, and there weren’t any cell phones back then. The 2nd very simple issue is who decides whether the Senate is in session? The President, or the Senate? The separation of powers absolutely requires that the Senate decide when it is in session. Therefore, the President requires the advise and consent of the Senate to fill a vacancy, and he can only do a recess appointment when the Senate is not in session, and away on recess. Its that simple. Obama could not get the Consent of the Senate for his appointees so despite the fact that the Senate made sure it was in session, Obama was the first President to ignore that and make illegal recess appointments while the Senate was in Session. He should be overruled 9 to 0, and any decision made with illegal appointees should be invalidated. Obama is not a dictator, he is a President with limited powers. The other things that is incredibly hypocritical is that Obama and the Democrat did the same thing to Bush to block his appointees when Obama was a Senator. Bush respected the Senate and the Constitution and did not try to make illegal recess appointments. Obama had no problem when he was blocking Bush appointees. That makes him a LIAR and a hypocrite. Nothing new for Obama, but he’s about to be reprimanded by the Supreme Court for his illegal actions.

Jan 13, 2014 9:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Obama is the worse case of presidential over reach that our country has ever seen. The liberals are in emergency cram down mode. That is why you see obama over reaching his authority and why you see Dirty Harry Reid envoking the nuclear option. They know their time is limited because america will not put up with this and the liberals do not anticipate being the majority in the near future.

Jan 13, 2014 9:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DURO wrote:

@Sledgehammer “they” do not flip!

Jan 13, 2014 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Hopefully some of those with power are finally beginning to wake up to Obama’s abuses of power.

Jan 14, 2014 12:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

This is a political issue, not a legal one. There is no overreach of power. no crime, just a petty little political dispute about what ‘in recess’ means – even though simple common sense says that if the Senate is not full and ready to vote, it is in recess.

This illustrates how broken the US political system is. No other advanced state allows judges to get involved in settling political disputes – and to do that by interpreting some old piece of paper puts the US in the same group as Islamic theocracies.

It also says a lot about Republicans that they think this is awesome…

Jan 14, 2014 3:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Bakhtin- The US is not like other countries and we do not care what the governmental makeup of the another country is. We have a unique makeup that has worked very well and will continue to work very well. We do not wish to be a mirror of Europe. We have fought that fight already. I would suggest that anyone that wishes to be like Europe should move to Europe and quit trying to make the US like Europe. It amazes me how often you push for the US to become more like another country.

Jan 14, 2014 8:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@4825

There we go with the US exceptionalism nonsense again: “We are different to other humans. What works for other humans doesn’t work for American humans.”

And do you really think the US political system works very well? Really?

Jan 14, 2014 10:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Bakhtin- With an absolute certainty.

Jan 14, 2014 11:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

Executive office over-reach in Senate ‘recess’ appointments, liberal ‘interpretation’ of current laws beyond the intention of Congress thru ‘executive action, selected failures to ‘enforce’ laws they don’t like and ‘targeting’ of rivals in the political process have all served to diminish the legitimacy of this Administration.

This is a Constitutional issue as all nine Justices clearly perceive – a Separation of Powers issue – and as Justice Roberts noted, it’s also a “political” issue. The Framers wanted this political debate on appointments – they wanted the ‘give and take’ of compromise. That’s why Noel Canning will prevail.. The EPA decision will be next..

Jan 14, 2014 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse

Of course it’s the senate’s job to determine whether they’re in recess or not, but sometimes their determination is not very convincing. Gaveling in and out so they can say they’re not in recess when they have no intention of doing any senate business is a cheap trick. And, yes, I know both parties have done this.

Jan 14, 2014 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

cbj wrote:
“What do you expect?
You did after all have a President who exclaimed “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Indeed, but Clinton in a court room defending himself against perjury charges by pointing out that ‘is’ is a present tense verb making the statement “there is nothing going on between us” true at the time of speaking, and the GOP playing childish political games to prevent recess appointments are two very different contexts.

In simple terms, it is a pointless apples-to-oranges comparison.

cbj wrote:
“Um, while I would stipulate that ALL political systems are broken from the start I find the US system (if operated as intended with a strict balance of power) to be the best and the worst of them all.”

I agree that all political systems are broken to a greater or lesser degree, and if they are not broken to start with the users will find a way to break them.

The US system is more broken than most. It has three *huge*, fundamental faults that spring immediately to mind:

1) A politicised judicial system. Look at how often the SC rule straight down party lines. This one fault alone should trigger a major reform.

2) The lack of an automatic debt ceiling. The USA is the only major country (maybe the only country… I am not that familiar with tin-pot African states) that allows politicians to vote in favour of spending and then to vote against making the money available. It is a really dumb system. If they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling, they should vote against spending that would involve raising the debt ceiling.

3) Filibusters. This is anti-democratic. It is not ‘checks and balances’ or preventing tyranny of the majority – it is handing the yes/no decision to an unelected minority.

cbj wrote:
“Are you truly this stupid?”

No, but you have revealed what your character truly is.

If it is such an absurd comparison, then it should have beeen very easy for you to specify precisely how “it must be true because the Constitution says it” is different to “it must be true because the Qu’ran says it”. Why didn’t you do that simple thing, if I am so stupid and making such an absurd comparison?

In both statements the logical proposition is the same – the truth can be found in the writings of X – and in both statements the logical premise is that X can never, ever, be wrong. Do I need to point out the logical flaw for you? Do I need to point out how the USA has elevated the Founding Father to the status of deities who cannot be wrong?

cbj wrote:
“Do you even know who Mikhail Bakhtin was?”

From a previous post…

“BTW it is Bakhtin with an ‘h’, as in Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin the awesome Russian semiotician, literary critic, and philosopher of language. IMO one of the greatest minds that ever lived and way ahead of his time, but thanks to Soviet anti-intellectualism (that seems to be building in the USA too, don’t you think?) a lot of his work is lost or incomplete”

You thought you were being clever there, didn’t you?

Jan 15, 2014 1:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.