Court Rules Obama Recess Appts Unconstitutional

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I tried three times to pick the part of this I most wanted to address and settled on this, the 'intent' part.

If this was, properly, decided on constitutional grounds, what it says, and not matters of current style, for once, then the courts will have simply done what they are supposed to do. Boring and dull and, in my view, in keeping with Heller and the ruling on Obamacare and political speech;

"This is proper, this is not. If you don't like the law, congress, guess what you lazy turds, we're not doing your job for you. Change it your damn selves."

So, to the point I reference from you above; the point here, as I see it, is for the Senate to do it's job and that is to either accept filibusters or get rid of them and, if the majority chooses not to get rid of them, as usual, then, they are, in fact, performing their constitutional role of being a voice in the legislative process and a voice that tends to say 'not so fast, folks. Let's kick this around some more.' Serving as both a check on the president and the House.

Maybe the Constitution ain't dead yet.

So you believe in a living Constitution?

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by GURPS

[narrow minded world view] - Congresses Passes TOO MANY Damned LAWS when we do not enforce the ones we have ...... IMHO Grid Lock is a GOOD THING ......

No doubt, but there are some contexts in which gridlock can be quite damaging / harmful.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

Guess the Supreme Court decision numbers. I'm going to guess 5-4 against this, just because it would be impossible to reconcile a yes vote with previous decisions.

Just to be clear, the Supreme Court hasn't provided much guidance with regard to the constitutionality of recess appointments. This most recent ruling is in conflict with prior circuit court decisions, but not really with any Supreme Court decisions that I'm aware of. So the high court could do whatever it wanted on these issues without having to reconcile its decision with prior decisions of the Supreme Court.

The general belief, to the extent there was one, that these kinds of appointments (i.e. intrasession recess appointments and recess appointments for offices that didn't become vacant during the current recess) were allowed, was based on the reality that they'd never been successfully challenged and based on circuit court rulings upholding their validity. Presidents have been making these kinds of appointments for a long time and those appointments have stood. Based on the lower courts' acquiescence and the Supreme Court's choice not to overturn those lower courts, it was reasonable for Presidents to believe they could make these kinds of appointments. However, the Supreme Court has never explicitly affirmed that.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

So you believe in a living Constitution?

Yes! It is amendable!!!

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

Guess the Supreme Court decision numbers. I'm going to guess 5-4 against this, just because it would be impossible to reconcile a yes vote with previous decisions.

I'd guess the Supreme Court will uphold recess appointments. I don't think the Supreme Court will want to rock the status quo.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Just to be clear, the Supreme Court hasn't provided much guidance with regard to the constitutionality of recess appointments. This most recent ruling is in conflict with prior circuit court decisions, but not really with any Supreme Court decisions that I'm aware of. So the high court could do whatever it wanted on these issues without having to reconcile its decision with prior decisions of the Supreme Court.

The general belief, to the extent there was one, that these kinds of appointments (i.e. intrasession recess appointments and recess appointments for offices that didn't become vacant during the current recess) were allowed, was based on the reality that they'd never been successfully challenged and based on circuit court rulings upholding their validity. Presidents have been making these kinds of appointments for a long time and those appointments have stood. Based on the lower courts' acquiescence and the Supreme Court's choice not to overturn those lower courts, it was reasonable for Presidents to believe they could make these kinds of appointments. However, the Supreme Court has never explicitly affirmed that.

By previous decisions I meant the general trend to give the executive office anything it want.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

By previous decisions I meant the general trend to give the executive office anything it want.

Gotcha.

My gut tells me it will want to avoid having to decide the underlying Constitutional issue. But if it decides to tackle that, my best guess would be that it upholds the first part of this ruling (i.e. intrasession recess appointments aren't valid) and then says that it doesn't need to reach the second part (i.e. regarding whether the office in question needs to have become vacant during the current recess).

[Tilted (Premo)]

Another circuit has reached much the same conclusion as the D.C. Circuit did with regard to intrasession recess appointments. In an opinion released today, a divided 3rd Circuit panel found that the Recess Appointments Clause gives the President power to make recess appointments only during intersession recesses. As the D.C. Circuit's decision would have, this latest decision would have meant that many of the recess appointments made by presidents in recent decades were improper.

This 3rd Circuit case relates to a different appointment, one made in March of 2010 rather than the more controversial ones made in January 2012. The 3rd Circuit also declined to address the issue of whether the vacancy being filled had to occur in the same intersession recess that the appointment was being made in, whereas the D.C. Circuit found that it did. And the D.C. Circuit panel was unanimous whereas one of the judges on the 3rd Circuit panel dissented. So the rulings are a bit different. But they are in agreement on the primary point that the recess has to be intersession - i.e. between the annual sessions of the Senate - in order for the President to make an appointment without it being approved by the Senate.

At this point it doesn't seem likely that the Supreme Court can avoid making a decision on that essential issue itself. If it decides as these 2 circuit panels have, that will represent a significant change in what presidents have long thought (or at least pretended) that they could do.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

Now maybe we can get that silly SOB out of the white house and into a prison for treason where he belongs.

And then what? Biden?

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Severa

Wasn't Obama a constitutional law scholar or something?

In order to destroy something like the constitution, you have to understand it; inside and out. You don't think Obama studied constitutional law in order to uphold do you?

In order to destroy your enemy, you have to understand your enemy.