Breaking: Supreme Court unanimously rejects Obama recess appointments

posted at 10:22 am on June 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The Supreme Court dropped a huge bomb on the Obama administration, unanimously rebuking the President for arrogating to himself the determination of when Congress is in session for the purpose of making recess appointments. According to reports on the opinion, the court may have taken a middle path on what a recess actually is, toning down one appellate court ruling that only allowed for recess appointments between formal sessions:

The US Supreme Court today limited a president’s power to make recess appointments when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties, scaling back a presidential authority as old as the republic.

The case arose from a political dispute between President Obama and Senate Republicans, who claimed he had no authority to put three people on the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 when the Senate was out of town.

He used a president’s power, granted by the Constitution, to “fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” But the Republicans said the Senate was not in recess at the time the appointments were made, because every three days a senator went into the chamber, gaveled it to order, and then immediately called a recess.

By a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court agreed that the Senate was not in recess, holding that it’s up to both houses of Congress to define when they’re in session or in recess. As a result of the decision, the Senate can frustrate a president’s ability to make recess appointments simply by holding periodic pro forma sessions, a tactic used in recent years by both political parties.

According to NBC’s Pete Williams, the opinion provides a timeframe for Congress and the White House to follow in the future:

That will certainly make it easier to play keep-away from the President. A minority on the court wanted to limit the recess power to strictly the period between sessions, as did one appellate court, but in the end a 5-4 majority decided to allow for a looser interpretation of “recess.” Certainly, if Congress wants to stop recess appointments from being made, it will be fairly easy to gavel into session every nine days.

The question will now be what happens to the NLRB rulings during the period when recess appointments provided a quorum. The answer appears to be that they can be successfully challenged and set aside. That was the context of the challenge to the recess appointments in the first place — lawsuits against regulation created in that period that alleged they were illegitimate. This ruling means that the Supreme Court unanimously agrees on that point, a severe rebuke to the “constitutional scholar” President and his abuse of power. More practically, though, the recent appointments to the NLRB can reconstitute that regulation if they wish, so the victory may be short lived for the plaintiffs.

Update: The decision in NLRB v Noel Canning et al can be found here.

Supreme Court decision


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Unanimous! Awesome!

Shay on June 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Oopsie.

katy the mean old lady on June 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

0bama won’t care…

OmahaConservative on June 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Something new to mention at the next SOTU. In between whining about other stuff.

RSbrewer on June 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Left unanswered is the status of the NLRB rulings made while the illegally-appointed commissioners were on the board via recess appointments. I don’t know whether clarification of those rulings were part of the original suit.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Awwwwww

Judicial activism!
-lefties

cmsinaz on June 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Heh

gophergirl on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

All rulings by the NLRB since the illegitimate appointments are now invalidated. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Voxsplainers begin!

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

This really changes nothing.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Of course, all Teh SCOAMT has to do is declare a disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournments and adjourn Congress himself.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Bunch of racists.

It’ll be fun hearing him call them out, like the spoiled child he is, at the next SOTU speech.

CurtZHP on June 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM

I’m glad SCOTUS agrees: a recess is what the Senate decides it is, not another branch of the government.

This arrogation of power by Obama was dangerous in its precedent.

Buck Farky on June 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Even the wise Latina b*tch slapped the muslim Kenyan village idiot.

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Bubba Redneck on June 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM

This really changes nothing.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

In the instant matter, it doesn’t. It does, however, hamstring future Presidents.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Has the IRS been alerted..?

d1carter on June 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Any ruling by NRLB should be vacated.

Tater Salad on June 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM

I’ll take the looser recess definition for a unanimous ruling on this.

myrenovations on June 26, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Jay Sekulow on FOX just now said this means all Obama’s questionable NLRB appointments are invalid as well as all the decisions these individuals were involved in.

IrishEi on June 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Obama’s going to be really mad about this when he reads about it next week.

joekenha on June 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Also just now, 9-0 struck down Mass law about buffer zones around abortion clinics. Said violates 1st amend.

ConservativePartyNow on June 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Steve E.

This should not hamstring any POTUS. It should keep them within the law. BTW, I love your website and news, Thx.

Sabercat2 on June 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Unconstitutional for the 35ft barrier at abortion clinics in massachusetts
Breaking

cmsinaz on June 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Certainly, if Congress wants to stop recess appointments from being made, it will be fairly easy to gavel into session every nine days.

If memory serves, the House gets to set the Senate’s schedule. So Obama will be unable to make anymore recess appointments during his administration. Unless he simply ignores SCOTUS like he does the law.

Physics Geek on June 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM

No one will be more shocked and appalled at this unconstitutional power grab than Obama when he sees this on MSNBC later.

changer1701 on June 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The proper decision, but what difference will it make to an administration which ignores the law at every turn? It’s like plugging up one hole in a damn that has a thousand.

xNavigator on June 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Ignoring illegitimate NLRB rulings requires no positive action on the part of the federal government.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Can’t Lerner still effect audits of these racist, extreme Tea Party Justices?

MistyLane on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

This really changes nothing.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

In the instant matter, it doesn’t. It does, however, hamstring future Presidents.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM
It invalidates the rulings by the board. So it chages a lot.

Ta111 on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Outstanding! Now all anyone who had a decision made by the NLRB after these “appointments” were made can successfully challenge it. and in theory every decision made since 2012 will automatically be overturned on appeal.

The good thing about this ruling is that it was unanimous. The Liberals can’t pull the old Republican Appointed Judges hate Obama, racist…blah, blah…blah.

Johnnyreb on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Jimmy Carter is looking better and better . . .

He can still serve one more term you know . . . .

Hillary can be his Veep . . . she knows the value of a dollar.

Think about it Democrats.

Bubba Redneck on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

A stinging rebuke, and a very good start!

Whitey Ford on June 26, 2014 at 10:34 AM

This really changes nothing.

faraway on June 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

I believe it’ll make Obama even more reckless and dangerous. He’ll be as angry as he was when he heard that the preliminary vote on ACA was 5-4 to invalidate the law.

forest on June 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

So. Will that change anything? Didn’t think so.

Tinker on June 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The US Supreme Court today limited a president’s power to make recess appointments when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties, scaling back a presidential authority as old as the republic.

Freaking morons. It has nothing to do with which party is in control of the Senate and the action scaled back is not as old as the Republic.

Why are you using a fantasy story which starts out with this fabrication, Ed? Can’t you link to a write up that is actually truthful?

Dusty on June 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Also just now, 9-0 struck down Mass law about buffer zones around abortion clinics. Said violates 1st amend.

ConservativePartyNow on June 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

So I guess those damned militia criminal racist teabagger Bundy protesters were right after all about BLM’s “free speech zones” after all?

MistyLane on June 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

So have the illegal NLRB appointees effectively been stealing money from the federal government this entire time via their salaries? Look for all their hard drives to suffer crashes.

JeremiahJohnson on June 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

impossible. Isn’t Obama a Constitutional scholar?

crrr6 on June 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Outstanding! Now all anyone who had a decision made by the NLRB after these “appointments” were made can successfully challenge it. and in theory every decision made since 2012 will automatically be overturned on appeal.

Johnnyreb on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I think they can just simply ignore the rulings. They don’t need to challenge illegitimate rulings. They only need to defend themselves against them if the Obama clown show is stupid enough to try and enforce them.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Meh. Dark Traitor ignores the law, anyway. It won’t make any difference since the GOP is too weak to do anything about it, and the press is too much in the tank to hold his feet to the fire. Eff him.

HiJack on June 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

They could hear him screaming in Key West.

katy the mean old lady on June 26, 2014 at 10:37 AM

It invalidates the rulings by the board. So it chages a lot.

Ta111 on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I did not see any discussion of that in the ruling, or at least in Breyer’s “Order of the Court” portion.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Will Barry ignore this? What could be done if he does?

TarheelBen on June 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM

When Obama gets up in a few hours and reads this in the newspaper….

Freckin pissed he will be…

Electrongod on June 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Pro-Lifers have Free Speech at Abortion Clinics

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/26/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-pro-lifers-have-free-speech-at-abortion-clinics/

Pork-Chop on June 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

So?

katy the mean old lady on June 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Buffer Zones decision in..
First Circuit ruling is reversed

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Friday, June 28, 4PM:

“CNN and MSNBC are pleased to report that President Obama (Allah’s Praise be unto Him) signed an Executive Order, allowing the Administration to set aside any Supreme Court decisions deemed ‘unhelpful’.”

A White House spokesman indicated that “We just want to make sure that nine misguided, intolerant and possibly raaaacist elitist judges don’t get this great nation headed down the wrong path…”

orangemtl on June 26, 2014 at 10:41 AM

That’s 3 unanimous decisions in 2 days.

Armageddon just around the corner!

UnstChem on June 26, 2014 at 10:41 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Yeah, because the Republic was formed in 2008. It’s not like some dishonest verbaldiarehamouth might pretend that there wasn’t 200+ years of precedent ignored by our current SCoaMF.

When there is so much history behind us on this issue the precedent was already well established, and so this truly is a rebuke of Obama above all else.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

It invalidates the rulings by the board. So it chages a lot.

Ta111 on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I did not see any discussion of that in the ruling, or at least in Breyer’s “Order of the Court” portion.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Atty Sekulow said it did invalidate any decision the questionable appointees were involved in.

IrishEi on June 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

If future presidents are hamstrung, they can thank Obama for playing around with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

TarheelBen on June 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Ignoring illegitimate NLRB rulings requires no positive action on the part of the federal government.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

What makes you think Obama intends to ignore illegitimate rulings?

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance. There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Wrong again, as usual.
No President had this power prior to Obama.

Obama thought he could violate the Constitution by appointing these people when the Senate was in session.

sentinelrules on June 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

When there is so much history behind us on this issue the precedent was already well established, and so this truly is a rebuke of Obama above all else.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

You are free to live in the moment.
Grab a beer and make a toast.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM

There is nothing Benedict Roberts can do which will make me forgive him for upholding healthcare “reform.” Nothing.

Ted the Average on June 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

More practically, though, the recent appointments to the NLRB can reconstitute that regulation if they wish, so the victory may be short lived for the plaintiffs.

That doesn’t apply to administrative adjudications though.

blammm on June 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Oooh Obama is going to be pissy when he’s here today. Heh

gophergirl on June 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Yes, there will be future presidents.

And, since Republican presidents actually follow the law, this only hurts the lawless Democrat presidents.

I don’t see anything unworthy of celebration here. Unless, of course, you believe in an imperial presidency. (Which you do, but only if your guy is in power.)

makattak on June 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

So when the next President refuses to enforce Obamacare, and bans abortion by executive order, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the precedents set by your guy.

Bat Chain Puller on June 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Who gave the supremes the authority to declare any time frame for congress to be in recess? It’s not in the constitution, period. The recess authority’s actually not needed anymore. It was included to provide the president the ability to react in times of emergencies while the congress members were out of town and it could take days or weeks to return to DC. The court took it upon itself to assume the controlling authority over defining recess.

Kissmygrits on June 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Wrong again, as usual.
No President had this power prior to Obama.

Obama thought he could violate the Constitution by appointing these people when the Senate was in session.

sentinelrules on June 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM

You could make that little speech about the myriad times a Prez has taken a stab at an Exec Power that SCOTUS rejects.
And anyway, I agree with the ruling.
But by all means..let’s find something to argue about.
/

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Buffer Zones decision in..
First Circuit ruling is reversed

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Good, that also means the abortion buffer zone bill signed in New Hampshire three weeks ago is now illegal.

sentinelrules on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

There is nothing Benedict Roberts can do which will make me forgive him for upholding healthcare “reform.” Nothing.

Ted the Average on June 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Yes, it’s going to be interesting to see what he does in the Hobby Lobby case on Monday.

AZCoyote on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

It’s you who is missing the point. There wouldn’t have had to be a ruling at all if Obama didn’t break the law with these appointments.

This man thinks laws do not apply to him even though he took an oath to faithfully uphold and execute them.

gophergirl on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

What makes you think Obama intends to ignore illegitimate rulings?

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM

You have it backwards. It isn’t this administration that must abide by these NLRB rulings, but businesses and employers effected by them. These businesses and employers can now just simply ignore the rulings. That requires no positive action on the part of the federal government. Now the feds may still try to enforce these rulings, but the defense against such enforcement writes itself. They won’t win any attempt to enforce them in court.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Yes, it’s going to be interesting to see what he does in the Hobby Lobby case on Monday.

AZCoyote on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Nervous about that one.

gophergirl on June 26, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Atty Sekulow said it did invalidate any decision the questionable appointees were involved in.

IrishEi on June 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

As we have seen from Team SCOAMT, if it’s not specified they can’t do something, they’ll do that something. It wasn’t specified, at least by SCOTUS, that they can’t enforce the NLRB decisions made while the illegally-appointed commissioners were sitting illegally.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:49 AM

You could make that little speech about the myriad times a Prez has taken a stab at an Exec Power that SCOTUS rejects.
And anyway, I agree with the ruling.
But by all means..let’s find something to argue about.
/

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM

That means you’re smarter than Obama.

And considering you have only three brain cells combined, that’s scary.

sentinelrules on June 26, 2014 at 10:49 AM

The NLRB should be abolished anyway……

http://www.cato.org/blog/abolish-nlrb-nlra

redguy on June 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

But by all means..let’s find something to argue about.
/

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM

If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

By all means, never stop being a dishonest douchetard.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Please provide examples of the presidents who have over-extended their authority, in the manner in which your fallen messiah has.

And, cite your sources.

kingsjester on June 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Further, as Ed pointed out, if push comes to shove, they’ll simply re-issue those rulings now that they have a legally-constituted quorum.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM

“The Law” is what King Barack the Magnificent says it is!

GarandFan on June 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Verb, the issue only came to the fore because the current President violated the Constitution. It’s a recurring theme in his administration.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on June 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM

With reids nuclear option in place this doesn’t hurt obama

cmsinaz on June 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM

You have it backwards. It isn’t this administration that must abide by these NLRB rulings, but businesses and employers effected by them. These businesses and employers can now just simply ignore the rulings. That requires no positive action on the part of the federal government. Now the feds may still try to enforce these rulings, but the defense against such enforcement writes itself. They won’t win any attempt to enforce them in court.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

So all of these decisions can be ignored going back to Jan 2012??

http://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/board-decisions

redguy on June 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM

What makes you think Obama intends to ignore illegitimate rulings?

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM

You have it backwards. It isn’t this administration that must abide by these NLRB rulings, but businesses and employers effected by them. These businesses and employers can now just simply ignore the rulings. That requires no positive action on the part of the federal government. Now the feds may still try to enforce these rulings, but the defense against such enforcement writes itself. They won’t win any attempt to enforce them in court.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Small businesses do not have the wherewithal to fight the federal government. Our government is run by bureaucrats (and a golfer-in-chief) who care little about the niceties of the rule of law.

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

The ruling makes sense.
If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.
There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

This was never a problem before Obama. Bush respected the pro forma session, brought to you by Harry Reid. Obama got elected and summarily blew it off.

crrr6 on June 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaluce on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Thankfully.

Bmore on June 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM

By all means, never stop being a dishonest douchetard.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

The correct term is Fetish Liar.

UnstChem on June 26, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Further, as Ed pointed out, if push comes to shove, they’ll simply re-issue those rulings now that they have a legally-constituted quorum.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM

True. Do you know if the now legally-constituted quorum is made up of the same individuals that were illegally appointed?

IrishEi on June 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Small businesses do not have the wherewithal to fight the federal government. Our government is run by bureaucrats (and a golfer-in-chief) who care little about the niceties of the rule of law.

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

You’re still missing the point. They don’t have to fight anything. The onus is on the feds to prove these rulings still are valid. Any business can just simply ignore them. And as I already stated the defense against enforcement writes itself.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Further, as Ed pointed out, if push comes to shove, they’ll simply re-issue those rulings now that they have a legally-constituted quorum.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Yeah and that goes back to my point that the NLRB should be abolished.

At some point “the people” will have to understand what “the politicians” are doing to them once they get sent to DC. I know that “the people” includes millions that would rather collect a govt check.
Maybe it is too late to push back against the 47% who would rather take the taxes you pay for not working. And as we see, the government (democrats) are importing more and more illegals everyday to overwhelm the system.

Somewhere, somehow many thousands of wrenches need to be thrown into the gears of government to slow it down, or soon, government will overwhelm “the people”.

Start throwing gators and snakes into the Rio Grande, let the illegal crossers think twice…..

redguy on June 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM

I really don’t like the 10 day limit. SCOTUS has given its blessing to a practice which sole purpose is to dodge the Senate’s constitutional power of advise and consent.

deadman on June 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM

What’s funny, is people thinking this ruling
will force this guy to change how he operates…

ToddPA on June 26, 2014 at 11:05 AM

LOL, C-BS Radio “News” spun this as a victory for O’bama. First they “reported” that the power of the recess appointment was upheld, then (in passing) noted that SCOTUS overturned the O’bama appointments.

Of course, in reality what SCOTUS confirmed in today’s ruling was that O’bama violated his Oath of Office and the Constitution, an impeachable offense.

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2014 at 11:05 AM

The ruling makes sense.

If you view it simply as Obama losing…you miss the point and the substance.

There will be future Presidents…and Senates.

verbaloon on June 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Here on Planet Earth, in reality what SCOTUS confirmed in today’s ruling was that O’bama violated his Oath of Office and the Constitution, an impeachable offense.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

His panties are going to be in a wad…..

crosshugger on June 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

So all of these decisions can be ignored going back to Jan 2012??

http://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/board-decisions

redguy on June 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM

I would assume that all decisions made by the NLRB while the illegitimate appointees were sitting on the board can rightly be ignored. I haven’t followed the NLRB, so I don’t know if legitimate appointments were made to replace the illegitimate. If so then rulings made by the legitimate board can’t be ignored. There is precedent for considering such illegitimacy invalid. RWM has it in her link above.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

If memory serves, the House gets to set the Senate’s schedule. So Obama will be unable to make anymore recess appointments during his administration. Unless he simply ignores SCOTUS like he does the law.

Physics Geek on June 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM

isn’t it that senate cannot go into recess unless house is however house can be in recess and senate not be?

dmacleo on June 26, 2014 at 11:08 AM

You’re still missing the point. They don’t have to fight anything. The onus is on the feds to prove these rulings still are valid. Any business can just simply ignore them. And as I already stated the defense against enforcement writes itself.

NotCoach on June 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Good luck with ignoring the federal government if they decide to put you in their sights. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Fenris on June 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Look how CNN sanitized this story:

The Supreme Court unanimously backs Congress in the power struggle over presidential recess appointments.

crrr6 on June 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

So the Senate confirmed these members later?

Impressive backbone, GOP.

BKeyser on June 26, 2014 at 11:12 AM

The question will now be what happens to the NLRB rulings during the period when recess appointments provided a quorum. The answer appears to be that they can be successfully challenged and set aside. That was the context of the challenge to the recess appointments in the first place — lawsuits against regulation created in that period that alleged they were illegitimate. This ruling means that the Supreme Court unanimously agrees on that point, a severe rebuke to the “constitutional scholar” President and his abuse of power.

Keep this in mind if the SCOTUS ever rules on a “natural born citizen” challenge and upholds the decision from Minor v. Happersett.

Virginia Minor did not need the 14th Amendment in order to be considered a citizen because she was a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The Court in minor explicitly avoided construing the 14th Amemdnment because it said Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen, born in the country to parents who were citizens, and she did not need the 14th amendment. The contrapositive is that anyone who needs the 14th amendment to be considered a citizen is not a natural born citizen.

And guess what? Obama’s campaign “Fight The Smears” web site initially said:

“Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

Then:

“The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20110318175449/http://www.fightthesmears.com//articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Then:

In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504021510/http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate

Neither Obama nor his campaign web sites ever made the claim that he was a natural born citizen.

If the court ever is asked to rule on whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, and upholds what the Court wrote in Minor v. Happersett, then Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States because he was (if his birth narrative is true) born a natural born British subject to his British subject father.

============

And any regulation (including but not limited to Obamacare) which was signed by an illegitimate pResident is illegitimate and void.

============

ITguy on June 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3