Supreme Court Justices question Obama's Recess Appointments.....

[MMC]

The Obama administration's top lawyer told justices that a ruling against the president would 'repudiate the constitutional legitimacy' of thousands of appointments. A lawyer for Senate Republicans calls the episode a 'complete abuse of the process.'

In his rebuttal, Solicitor General Verrilli challenged the charge. “It is just not the case that this is an end-run around the advice and consent of the Senate,” he said.

Several of the justices raised similar questions during the 90-minute session.

Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee and former solicitor general in the Obama administration, noted that the Recess Appointments Clause appears to have been written to address the problem of congressional absence.

Verrilli, who replaced Kagan as solicitor general, disagreed. The president had to act, he said, the NLRB was about to “go dark.”

“Yes,” Kagan replied, “as a result of congressional refusal, not as a result of congressional action.”

Verrilli tried to regroup. “Perhaps it sounds like this is an aggressive assertion of executive authority,” he said. But what the Framers were most concerned about, he said, was Congress draining authority from the executive branch.

“The executive needed to be fortified against those actions by Congress,” he said.....snip~

Supreme Court justices question Obama's recess appointments

It doesn't look good for Obama and his argument. It appears our SCOTUS Justices are viewing this as an end run around the Congress by the Executive.

Do you think they will rule against Obama or for him?

 

[CanadaJohn]

The Obama administration's top lawyer told justices that a ruling against the president would 'repudiate the constitutional legitimacy' of thousands of appointments. A lawyer for Senate Republicans calls the episode a 'complete abuse of the process.'

In his rebuttal, Solicitor General Verrilli challenged the charge. “It is just not the case that this is an end-run around the advice and consent of the Senate,” he said.

Several of the justices raised similar questions during the 90-minute session.

Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee and former solicitor general in the Obama administration, noted that the Recess Appointments Clause appears to have been written to address the problem of congressional absence.

Verrilli, who replaced Kagan as solicitor general, disagreed. The president had to act, he said, the NLRB was about to “go dark.”

“Yes,” Kagan replied, “as a result of congressional refusal, not as a result of congressional action.”

Verrilli tried to regroup. “Perhaps it sounds like this is an aggressive assertion of executive authority,” he said. But what the Framers were most concerned about, he said, was Congress draining authority from the executive branch.

“The executive needed to be fortified against those actions by Congress,” he said.....snip~

Supreme Court justices question Obama's recess appointments

It doesn't look good for Obama and his argument. It appears our SCOTUS Justices are viewing this as an end run around the Congress by the Executive.

Do you think they will rule against Obama or for him?

Good morning MMC

I wouldn't be fist-pumping just yet. The way Roberts contorted himself to avoid interference in the political process in the ACA matter leads me to believe this court is incapable of simply ruling in a legal sense and fancies itself more as inactive mediators who are loathe to rule against anything political.

Your court could be back on the road to integrity recovery by throwing out each and every Presidential appointment that was made during the Senate session Obama chose to ignore, but I'm not sure they have the spine to do it until such time as they actually do.

 

[scatt]

Scalia said this jokingly in response to the SG: "If you ignore the Constitution often enough, its meaning changes.”

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is little difference between nominating extremely partisan folks, that get rejected by the Senate, and then simply ramming them through during "recess" periods and simply not having the Senate involved at all. If the court allows the executive to "bypass" the Senate approval process by using a "recess" technicality, rather than to appoint less controversial personnel, then they will have effectively rendered the Senate confirmation process moot.

 

[MMC]

Good morning MMC

I wouldn't be fist-pumping just yet. The way Roberts contorted himself to avoid interference in the political process in the ACA matter leads me to believe this court is incapable of simply ruling in a legal sense and fancies itself more as inactive mediators who are loathe to rule against anything political.

Your court could be back on the road to integrity recovery by throwing out each and every Presidential appointment that was made during the Senate session Obama chose to ignore, but I'm not sure they have the spine to do it until such time as they actually do.

Mornin CJ. :2wave: Yeah.....but this is even Obama's Appointees looking at this as an end run around the Senate. Its clear Kagan sees Obama and other presidents using this to get around the Senate and its Function.

 

[scatt]

Full transcript of the arguments, for anyone who wants to know.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1281_d1o2.pdf

 

[Ray410]

Perhaps the Court feels some increased pressure to regain a modicum of respect, however slight, after seeing the widespread national damage caused by Robert's shocking treachery with Obamacare.

 

[scatt]

Good quote from Roberts about the senate: Well, they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the President submits."

 

[scatt]

The SC keeps mentioning that the NLRB would "go dark" if the appointments could not be approved, so Scalia answers with, "If there is indeed this, you know, this terrible emergency you're talking about, the President has the power to call them back."

Even Breyer is getting in on this, "I can't find anything that says the purpose of this clause has anything at all to do with political fights between Congress and the President."

Ginsburg on the attempted appointments being able to expire, : "One reason they could have put the language in is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and they've had a big fight in Congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didn't want to happen.

 

[MMC]

The SC keeps mentioning that the NLRB would "go dark" if the appointments could not be approved, so Scalia answers with, "If there is indeed this, you know, this terrible emergency you're talking about, the President has the power to call them back."

Here is another Headline Scatt......I think they will rule against Obama and force him to recall.


High court skeptical of Obama recess appointments.....

The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on President Barack Obama's use of a provision of the Constitution to make temporary appointments to high-level positions over the objection of Senate Republicans.

The court is writing on a blank slate as it considers for the first time the Constitution's recess appointments clause. That clause allows the president to fill vacancies temporarily, but only when the Senate is in recess.

Three federal appeals courts have said Obama overstepped his authority because the Senate was not in recess when he acted. The Supreme Court case involves a dispute between a Washington state bottling company and a local Teamsters union in which the NLRB sided with the union. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the board's ruling, and hundreds more NLRB rulings could be voided if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision.

Three federal appeals courts have upheld recess appointments in previous administrations.....snip~

High court skeptical of Obama recess appointments

 

[reinoe]

Good quote from Roberts about the senate: Well, they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the President submits."

Roberts was on the verge of striking down the individual mandate until he realized he owns stock in health insurance.

 

[alsos]

Full transcript of the arguments, for anyone who wants to know.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1281_d1o2.pdf

Reading these transcripts always makes my head spin. I'm only about a quarter of the way throug this thing and already Verrilli has been told about a dozen times he isn't answering the justices' questions. I wish I could hear their voices and get the tone.

Reading on...

 

[scatt]

Here is another Headline Scatt......I think they will rule against Obama and force him to recall.


High court skeptical of Obama recess appointments.....

The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on President Barack Obama's use of a provision of the Constitution to make temporary appointments to high-level positions over the objection of Senate Republicans.

The court is writing on a blank slate as it considers for the first time the Constitution's recess appointments clause. That clause allows the president to fill vacancies temporarily, but only when the Senate is in recess.

Three federal appeals courts have said Obama overstepped his authority because the Senate was not in recess when he acted. The Supreme Court case involves a dispute between a Washington state bottling company and a local Teamsters union in which the NLRB sided with the union. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the board's ruling, and hundreds more NLRB rulings could be voided if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision.

Three federal appeals courts have upheld recess appointments in previous administrations.....snip~

High court skeptical of Obama recess appointments

It certainly does not look good for the appointments to remain constitutional, but there is still the chance they rule in favor of them.

 

[scatt]

Reading these transcripts always makes my head spin. I'm only about a quarter of the way throug this thing and already Verrilli has been told about a dozen times he isn't answering the justices' questions. I wish I could hear their voices and get the tone.

Reading on...

That is not a problem, they audio record all the arguments too. Except the audio does not go up as fast as the written transcript, and it is not up yet.

 

[reinoe]

The SC keeps mentioning that the NLRB would "go dark" if the appointments could not be approved, so Scalia answers with, "If there is indeed this, you know, this terrible emergency you're talking about, the President has the power to call them back."

Even Breyer is getting in on this, "I can't find anything that says the purpose of this clause has anything at all to do with political fights between Congress and the President."

Ginsburg on the attempted appointments being able to expire, : "One reason they could have put the language in is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and they've had a big fight in Congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didn't want to happen.

If Obama doesn't concede will he repeatedly recall Congress until they vote?

 

[MMC]

If Obama doesn't concede will he repeatedly recall Congress until they vote?

I don't think so.....as then his own Team would get upset with him for interfering with their personal plans.

 

[Paschendale]

So, let's say that all of these appointments were unconstitutional... As a reward for this, we get to bog the government down even more by allowing the least effective congress ever to turn more basic procedural actions into partisan bickering. How exactly does this benefit anyone? The fringe right's mission to prove that government doesn't work is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are quite capable of sabotaging the country and making life ever more difficult for struggling Americans whose interests they are supposed to be representing. No one wins from this crap.

 

[scatt]

So, let's say that all of these appointments were unconstitutional... As a reward for this, we get to bog the government down even more by allowing the least effective congress ever to turn more basic procedural actions into partisan bickering. How exactly does this benefit anyone? The fringe right's mission to prove that government doesn't work is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are quite capable of sabotaging the country and making life ever more difficult for struggling Americans whose interests they are supposed to be representing. No one wins from this crap.

He could try appointing less horrible people?

 

[Smartmouthwoman]

He could try appointing less horrible people?

Good advice. He could even try finding peope who would be acceptable to both sides.

*gasp*

Sorry, went a little crazy there for a minute. This IS Obama, we're talking about.

 

[reinoe]

He could try appointing less horrible people?

The Devel wears prada.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, let's say that all of these appointments were unconstitutional... As a reward for this, we get to bog the government down even more by allowing the least effective congress ever to turn more basic procedural actions into partisan bickering. How exactly does this benefit anyone? The fringe right's mission to prove that government doesn't work is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are quite capable of sabotaging the country and making life ever more difficult for struggling Americans whose interests they are supposed to be representing. No one wins from this crap.

I think you and I have different views on effective. The congress that does the least is often the one that does the best

and don't whine about sabotage. we saw what the Demotards did with Estrada and Keisler

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Reading these transcripts always makes my head spin. I'm only about a quarter of the way throug this thing and already Verrilli has been told about a dozen times he isn't answering the justices' questions. I wish I could hear their voices and get the tone.

Reading on...

Via Oyez, at the bottom of the case summary and questions presented...

 

[ChezC3]

Do you think they will rule against Obama or for him?

Judging by the way they've lifted up their robes and bent over for him as of late?

I'm not optimistic...

 

[ludin]

here is the thing. the president has the constitutional right to appoint people while the senate is out of session.

The senate was not on break. they were in what is called pro-forma sessions. meaning that they were still in session when obama tried to appoint these people.
That is why it several federal courts have ruled that he didn't have the power to appoint them. not that he couldn't due it normally it was the fact that the senate was still in session when he did it.

the SCOTUS should uphold the ruling. if they don't then it makes senate confirmation useless. the president can just appoint people whenever.