100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama. The high court's first case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted. Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB. The justices rejected that argument Thursday. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Neither house of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other. The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees. But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running. The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-rebukes-obama-recess-appointments-141313378--politics.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SCOTUS decision against President Obama is a unanimous decision.
Do you realize how rare it is for the SCOTUS to make a unanimous decision? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama. The high court's first case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted. Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB. The justices rejected that argument Thursday. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Neither house of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other. The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees. But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running. The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-rebukes-obama-recess-appointments-141313378--politics.html How could the Constitutional Scholar go so wrong?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama. The high court's first case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted. Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB. The justices rejected that argument Thursday. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Neither house of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other. The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees. But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running. The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-rebukes-obama-recess-appointments-141313378--politics.html How could the Constitutional Scholar go so wrong?
He might try reading it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SCOTUS decision against President Obama is a unanimous decision. Do you realize how rare it is for the SCOTUS to make a unanimous decision? Especially with two VERY Liberal judges that HE appointed! He is the most corrupt, self serving, ignorant, cowardly piece of trash that has ever occupied the White House. It's time for him to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama. The high court's first case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted. Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB. The justices rejected that argument Thursday. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Neither house of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other. The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees. But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running. The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-rebukes-obama-recess-appointments-141313378--politics.html How could the Constitutional Scholar go so wrong?
Scholar my a$$. His law experience is very limited and handled no major cases just cases a first year law student could handle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where's his Liberal defenders? Are they in hiding? Maybe they are starting to realize their Messiah is a fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama. The high court's first case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted. Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB. The justices rejected that argument Thursday. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Neither house of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other. The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees. But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running. The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-rebukes-obama-recess-appointments-141313378--politics.html How could the Constitutional Scholar go so wrong?
Scholar my a$$. His law experience is very limited and handled no major cases just cases a first year law student could handle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If only everyone in leadership had to come with a label...... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol love that sojourner
I think he plans to press on.....I agree with a few of his recent decisions but only because they were, oddly enough, on the side of upholding current law. The only times I have really opposed the President are the times when it was fairly apparent that he was either refusing to enforce the laws on the books, or creating legislation of his own (and not for a vote ... lol). And that has happened too many times IMO. Yes time for King Obama to be "reigned" in. He needs to obey, enforce the laws ALL of time and according to procedure when he does use executive privilege. And, there are times he can do that as the executive. However, his personal preferences are not part of the criteria...lol. That is why who we choose for that spot is so important. |
|
|
|
|
