Tag Archive: Recess Appointments


Rasmussen: Plurality Of Democrats Think Obama Should Be Able To Ignore Court Rulings If It’s “Important”

 

 

 

” A small reminder that Obama couldn’t get away with his authoritarian plays on immigration and health care if his party wasn’t backing him up. Turns out, in fact, that they’re willing to go even further than he is. Obama tends to limit himself to summarily rewriting federal statutes, like immigration laws and ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Democrats wonder: Why not rewrite some federal court rulings too?

  Something to bear in mind as we wait for SCOTUS’s decision on ObamaCare subsidies in the Halbig case and the Fifth Circuit’s decision on that injunction blocking O’s executive amnesty. He’s already entered the YOPO phase of his presidency. Why not make his base happy by ignoring any adverse rulings and instigating a full-blown constitutional crisis?

  The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country…

  But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party… “

 

Read more at Hot Air

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Day Of Victory At The Supreme Court

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” This morning, the Supreme Court announced two unanimous decisions, both of them defeats for the Obama Administration and victories for the Constitution.

  In the first, Canning v. NLRB, the Supreme Court struck down President Obama’s “recess appointments” to the powerful National Labor Relations Board. The question was simple: Was the Senate in recess or in session when it was in a so-called “pro forma” session. The Supreme Court’s conclusion was sensible:

  In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here.

  We represented the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, in the case, filing a brief on his behalf. The case represented a key victory for the Speaker and the House itself, since the House has a high degree of control over even the Senate’s schedule. 

  The bottom line is simple: The President will not be able to circumvent the Senate’s “advise and consent” through recess appointments without the consent of both houses of Congress.

  Today is a good day for the separation of powers.

  It is also a good day for free speech and the pro-life movement.

  In the day’s second decision, McCullen v. Coakley, the Court struck down Massachusetts’ buffer zone law, a law that prohibited any person within a 35-foot radius of an abortion clinic entrance or driveway from approaching another person “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.”

  Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court, and once again the Court’s reasoning was sensible and constitutionally sound:

  Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment.

  The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in support of Eleanor McCullen’s free speech rights while the Obama Administration supported censorship.

  This case is a watershed in the movement to undo the infamous “abortion distortion,” the judicial distortion in free-speech jurisprudence that effectively denies full free speech rights to the pro-life movement. At the ACLJ we have a decades-long history of battling for pro-life free speech at the Supreme Court, and today’s victory sends an important message.

  The Obama Administration and pro-abortion state governments are on notice: pro-life speech is free speech, fully protected by the First Amendment. The pro-life movement is now more free to take its life-saving message to the people who need to hear it the most.”

 

 

 

   Add these victories to the recent decision voiding the practice of warrantless cell phone searches and you have a great week for liberty from the Supreme Court .

Support Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daily Video 1.15.14

Senators: Obama Ignores Constitution, Seizing Dictatorial Powers

 

 

 

 

 

Published on Jan 14, 2014

” Senators blast Obama’s abuse of executive power.”

 

 

   Once you get past Mitch McConnell and his mealy-mouth you will enjoy what Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have to say . Stick with it , the second half is worth it .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meet The Liberals Backing Obama’s Executive Power Play In Labor Board Case

 

 

 

” On Monday January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a major case testing the scope of presidential power.

  What is surprising, however, is that Obama has also received strong support from a leading liberal organization, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a Washington think tank and law firm “dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution’s text and history.”

  According to a friend of the court brief submitted by the Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of the federal government in Noel Canning, “crabbed and erroneous interpretations of the Recess Appointments Clause would undermine the scope of a presidential power that is fundamental to the proper operation of the federal government: the President’s ability to make temporary appointments to Executive and Judicial Branch offices when the Senate is unavailable to provide its advice and consent.”

  That view is surprising because it stands in such marked contrast to previous progressive interpretations of the Recess Appointments Clause, most notably that of Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. In 2003, Kennedy filed his own friend of the court brief when the federal courts heard a similar case dealing with President Bush’s purported recess appointment of William H. Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, an appointment which Bush made while the Senate was on an intra-session break, not while it was in recess.”

 

Story continues 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court’s New Term Could Be One Of The Most Historic In Years

 

 

 

” Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court returned to the bench for a new term Monday with a number of cases on the docket that could affect the Nation for decades to come.

An article published in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday concedes that the court’s conservative justices — if they agree among themselves — have the opportunity to “shift the law to the right on abortion, contraception, religion and campaign funding.” Journalists writing for Buzzfeed,The Washington Post and The New York Times’ editorial board have expressed similar sentiments upon reviewing the list of cases the Nation’s highest court is slated to hear in the current term, which extends into summer.

Here’s a look at a few of the cases on the docket: “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Court To Hear Obama Recess Appointments Case

 

 

” The Supreme Court on Monday waded into a major constitutional clash between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans that could fundamentally limit a president’s use of recess appointments to fill high-level administration posts.

The justices will review a federal appeals court ruling that found Obama overstepped his authority when he bypassed the Senate last year to fill three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

At issue for the Supreme Court: What constitutes a congressional recess and does it matter when a vacancy occurs?

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., held earlier this year that recess appointments can be made only during the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. Two judges on the panel also ruled — for the first time — that a vacancy must occur while the Senate is away in order to be filled during the same break.”

 

 

 

Illustration by The Looking Spoon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama: If you can’t trust us, we’re going to have some problems

 

Obama’s War On The Constitution

 

 

 

” A physician’s expertise makes him capable of inflicting great harm, noted Plato a couple thousand years ago, and no one is better positioned to steal than a guard. So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law.

As a general rule, politicians tend to whipsaw between two poles. Conservatives try to increase economic liberty but show less regard for civil liberties. Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.

But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both. 

From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse. When he retires from public life, perhaps he will return to teaching the Constitution. That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Senate Republicans have hired a lawyer to file legal arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of recess appointments made by President Barack Obama. The case was brought by a Washington state businessman challenging a ruling by National Labor Relations Board, which had three recess appointments, The Washington Post’s 2 Chambers blog reported.”