All nine justices reject Obama recess appointments

[UncleBeer 244]

(Hopefully this subject heading will pass VJ moderation muster. But who knows; seems somewhat random what they choose to swoop in on these days,,,)

In a rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court struck down three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional.

Well, to be fair, they struck down his recess appointments simply because Congress wasn't in recess. It was nothing more than yet another naked power grab by the preznit. Maybe he'll have to turn in his "Constitutional Scholar" badge.

By the way: the preznit has a pretty shocking record of losses with the Supremes. Maybe he's doing something wrong?

[UncleBeer 244]

In fact, today was the twelfth and thirteenth unanimous decision by the Supremes against the preznit since 2012. Say, you don't think he's been trying to subvert the law, do you? He seems like such a nice young man....

[Jacque67 7,328]

Love you!

[UncleBeer 244]

Love you!

Content-free post. Thanks so much.

(If only mods would cast their eyes on this kind of ####### occasionally . . ).

[Jacque67 7,328]

Eminem is righteous !

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When is UncleBeer going to admit that he is Gary? Everyone knows it is him. Worst kept secret ever.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

(Hopefully this subject heading will pass VJ moderation muster. But who knows; seems somewhat random what they choose to swoop in on these days,,,)

Well, to be fair, they struck down his recess appointments simply because Congress wasn't in recess. It was nothing more than yet another naked power grab by the preznit. Maybe he'll have to turn in his "Constitutional Scholar" badge.

By the way: the preznit has a pretty shocking record of losses with the Supremes. Maybe he's doing something wrong?

I think the court may be getting it's act together.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Now the question becomes… if the board appointments were illegal, then what happens to all those NLRB rules -2 years worth- that have been instituted since the Labor Board Members were unconstitutionally appointed.

[UncleBeer 244]

Now the question becomes… if the board appointments were illegal, then what happens to all those NLRB rules -2 years worth- that have been instituted since the Labor Board Members were unconstitutionally appointed.

Apparently some decisions can't be easily reversed, as they've already been implemented, but any other controversial cases are now open to easy challenge due to the board's unconstitutional makeup.

Still, more than 100 of the 436 decisions were challenged by companies in federal court and could be sent back by the courts to the board to be re-decided—if they haven't been otherwise resolved, labor lawyers said Thursday.

The preznit's lawyers never had any kind of case to make. Here were the circumstances of his 'urgent' need to fill NLRB vacancies as described at the time:

Consider the astonishing timeline here – Obama submitted the names of his proposed appointments two weeks ago - two weeks ago - there has been no filibuster of the appointments; there hasn’t even been a cloture vote scheduled. The Senate hasn’t taken any action one way or another because there’s this holiday that happens in the last two weeks of December that some Americans celebrate, but Reid has kept the Senate in pro forma session, including regular meetings, to preserve the Senate’s prerogative to advise and consent on Obama’s nominees, as it is absolutely and beyond caveat the Senate’s prerogative to do. Thus, despite the fact that the Senate isn’t even dragging its feet on these appointments, and despite the fact that the Senate has been adamant that it is not in recess, Obama has arrogated to himself the power to declare the Senate in recess for them and short circuit the entire Constitutional process for Senate confirmation of Constitutional officers.

So the preznit's power-grab has essentially thrown the NLRB's work into chaos, and for what? Obama's narcissistic grandstanding, and nothing more.

Also interesting that the mainstream media is reporting the story as the Supremes "severely limiting" the preznit's 'right' to make recess appointments. Anyone who understands the case knows that Congress was not in recess at the time (that's entirely their determination to make, not his), so the Supremes in no way 'limited' his power. It merely rescinded his power-grab.