 |
Two unanimous decisions today, SCOTUS ruled Obama's LRB appointments were unconstitutional. Apparently they all agreed Congress determines when it is in recess.
On another front, they unanimously agreed that Massachusetts'' 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics was unconstitutional. Apparently, all 3 female justices and the female plaintiff are waging a war on women.
Attachment 46208
Right calls?
let's read women their rights, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to remain celebrate, if you fall pregnent and want an abortion, one will not be provided for you
Steve ,if you examine the recess apt case you see it is a mixed bag where the 'living breathing constitution crowd really came out on top. Yes SCOTUS made a unanimous vote against the specific recess apt. In this case, the court concluded that the recess appointments at issue are invalid because the recess was not “of sufficient length”
However ,on the broader question about POTUS power under the appointment clause ,the originalists were the minority .
Art 2 Sec 2 reads ....
It doesn't say during a recess.Quote:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
What is the recess ? There is no doubt that “the Recess” referred only to the period between formal legislative sessions ;and that recess appointments could only happen when vacancies occurred in the recess .
But in a 5-4 decision that Justice Beyer wrote ,the libs on the court (joined by Kennedy ) decided that a recess occurs WHENEVER the Senate is out for an undetermined length of time. The ruling states, that presidents have the authority to fill any existing vacancy during any recess ; during a session of Congress or in between sessions , so long as the recess is “of sufficient length.”(whatever that means) .
As Scalia wrote in dissent ,the majority wrote an "adverse-possession theory of executive authority"into their interpretation .And that undermines the Senate 'Advise and Consent' Power .
Hi Tom,
Clever isn't it? "A" is understood to refer to a non-specific article, but this doesn't exclude the possibility that it exists on a continuum. On other other had "the" refers to definite article so it probably doesn't exist on a continuum.
Pages of debate surrounding that decision don't you think?
Please, no Scalia's originalist interpretation.
too bad . out of all the justices on SCOTUS ,his are more often correct.Quote:
Please, no Scalia's originalist interpretation.
You mean his politics are more correct. In the end well all know it comes down to their politics.
nope . Originalism is not politics it's the proper way to interpret the Constitution.
It all boiles down to the simple basic fact... the President doesn't get to make the decision if the congress are on recess or not... THEY, and they alone make that decision.
Well of course. For a minute there I thought political factions might exist inside SCOTUS. You know... the origionalists and the "living breathing" mob. It is good to know there is only one mod dabbling in politics. Thanks Tom,I will certainly sleep better tonight.
I begin to wonder is there actually anyone in charge
Obama thinks he and he alone comands everyone... apparently be was stoned during his Civics classes and never learned one of the basic concepts our government is based upon. Namely Coequal branches of government.
There isn't supposed to be anyone in charge, it's a group effort with separated powers even though the emperor and some of his congressional minions think he can act unilaterally.Quote:
I begin to wonder is there actually anyone in charge
With all the checks and balances how do you actually get anything done? I know the problem arises here too but we have learned the art of compromise and negotiation. lessons anyone?
Most times nothing getting done is far better than "Something" getting done when its what only ONE individual wants that is being rammed down everyone's throats.
Senates controlled by both parties have been doing this "in session" trick to presidents of the opposite party forever. Harry Reid did it to Bush if I remember correctly. But since the nuclear option, a simple vote gets the NRLB judges their jobs.
Now on the Mass abortion clinic protest laws I find it hilarious the same court that affords itself a wide buffer for prohibiting public displays/protests doesn't do the same for clinics that are known to be targets and victims of violence.
Odd since far more violence takes place inside an abortion clinic than ever happens outside them.;
I haven't seen anyone dismembered outside of one yet. But its a regular event inside of them.
You can't compromise when one side says "I won" and then proceeds to shut out the other side, ram unwanted legislation down our throats, changes the filibuster rules and deems every Republican initiative DOA.
But speaking of the constitution, Dems are proposing a 28th anti-Koch" amendment.
Dems struggle to show anti-Koch amendment is 'reasonable' | WashingtonExaminer.com
Um, no. If you want a "Reasonable" amendment let's do term limits for Congress.Quote:
While much of Washington grapples with international crises, chronic economic troubles, and upcoming midterm elections, Senate Democrats are steadily pushing forward with what they hope will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The proposed amendment would give Congress authority to regulate every dollar raised, and every dollar spent, by every federal campaignand candidate in the country. It would give state legislatures the power to do the same with state races.
Framed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a response to campaign spending by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the proposed amendment, written by Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet and co-sponsored by 42 other Senate Democrats, would vastly increase the power of Congress to control elections and political speech.
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!
The problem is, Democrats aren't quite sure exactly what the amendment should say. In a move that received virtually no attention, they recently re-wrote the measure — and in the process revealed its fatal flaw.
This is the heart of the amendment as originally written by Udall and Bennet:To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including through setting limits on --There are literally no limits to congressional power in those words. In the name of "political equality for all," Democrats proposed to change the Constitution to allow lawmakers to impose any restriction they want on campaign fundraising and spending -- in other words, on campaigning itself.
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office; and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Republicans characterized the Udall-Bennet amendment as a clear infringement of First Amendment free-speech rights, as well as a particularly naked power-grab by Congress. Democrats responded that the proposed measure was in fact a reasonable response to the "problem" of money in politics, represented in their view by the Kochs.
"We need to make sure that there are reasonable, commonsense limitations in place to prevent wealthy special interests from tarnishing our democratic process," Democratic Sen. Durbin, D-Ill., said in a June 18 meeting of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Or kill the Citizens United decision.
You might not be able to kill it, but putting names to the money adds a degree of transparency that might be informative to the electorate.
THE recess is only the period between sessions. Here is some backround.
Originally Congress ended it's session in December , and could begin as late as March . That was a long time to wait to wait to fill important positions. So the recess appointment was created to temporarily fill the position.
It was not designed to undermine the power of the Senate as it has been used by various Presidents in the late 20th -early 21st century.
Again ... if so fundamental a change is needed then an amendment to the constitution would be the prescribed remedy... not executive and judicial fiat .
When they can skirt the law there is no need for compromise . The beauty of the Senate appointment power was that the President had to appoint someone that would be acceptable . So the appointment itself was the compromise.Quote:
With all the checks and balances how do you actually get anything done? I know the problem arises here too but we have learned the art of compromise and negotiation. lessons anyone?
Names like Steyer and Soros?Quote:
putting names to the money adds a degree of transparency
The senate can change its own rules since in modern times the whole definition of recess has changed. Good luck on a constitutional amendment since its easier just to send a freshman senator to bang a gavel every other day than to get the required vote for an amendment.
With modern technology and tele conferencing why do they have to be in the same place, and why do we stand in the rain to vote? Stupid humans.
That's because besides wanting to deny the Koch bros their constitutional right of free speech ;they want to preserve those same rights to their donors like Warren Buffett ,Jon Stryker,Paul Egerman,George Soros and the multitude of public sector unions.Quote:
The problem is, Democrats aren't quite sure exactly what the amendment should say.
What the SCOTUS Decision Ending Obama’s Recess Appointment Power Means | The Nation
Quote:
One area where this was extremely problematic was the National Labor Relations Board—three members had their five-year terms expire in 2012, and Senate Republicans filibustered Obama's replacements. With three empty seats, the NLRB would not have a quorum to function, and the practical effect would be that US labor law would no longer be enforced. (It's not hard to see this as the GOP's goal here).
The White House didn't want this to happen, and Obama contemplated and ultimately made “recess appointments” to the three seats.
Tal... if you can find a way to attach a fan to that... you could create a windstorm from the spin (or a LOT of free electricity if you hook up a generator). Sicne Harry Reid changed teh rules makign it impossible for the minority to block an appointment.
WHen we take back the Senate and the White House....all we have to do is keep the rules the way they are and the Democrats can't block anything then.
It doesn't matter what Obama wants, there are constitutional checks and balances. The president does not get to determine when the Senate is in recess.
"The recess is only the period between sessions"
Can also be written written as:
A recess is only the period between sessions.
The founders clearly meant "the " recesss as a specific period between Congressional sessions . They take weekends ,holidays ,vacations ,and time off campaigning during sessions . In Beyer's world a recess appointment could occur during ANY of this instances as long as they are of an undefined period of time.
For what it's worth ,I think an amendment should eliminate recess appointments entirely . It was designed for a time when it took weeks to travel the country ,and there were months between sessions. That is not the case anymore .
BUT if there is a change ,it should come from an amendment and not from an arbitrary decision by POTUS backed by activist unelected ,appointed for life justices .
I'm sure the emperor would prefer that the Senate had no oversight of his appointments .
They can vote for or against, and things have changed dramatically since the horse and buggy that formed the founders views of a recess. Like I said, the nuclear options made the issue moot.
Obama Recess Appointments Case - Business Insider
Quote:
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year that the case had the potential to bring Washington even more paralysis and dysfunction. That was before, however, the Senate changed its rules to allow most presidential nominees to be confirmed by majority vote.
The Dems will rue the day they initiated the nuclear option.
Like you guys rue it NOW?
look ;the emperor bemoans the fact that the House won't bow to his wishes and pass his agenda . Too bad . He calls them a 'do nothing Congress ' when in fact they've passed a lot of legislation that sits on Harry Reid's desk collecting dust. But ;let's say this Congress was in fact doing nothing but playing bubble burst on their phones all day long . That still does not give him the authority to act unconstitutionally outside of his defined powers . If he wants his appointments passed without delay then nominate candidates that are acceptable to the whole Senate .If he wants an agenda passed then propose one that is acceptable to both houses of Congress.
What's wrong with having a vote and a simple majority? When you guys take the senate don't the same rules apply?
"The Founders clearly meant "the recess as a specific period between Congressional session."
Yes Tom, I know and I haven't disputed that. I am pointing out that people have devoted chapters in grammar books exclusively on the usage of "a" and "the" in the English language.
This is why people become Constitutional lawyers, and as you point out, some retire to SCOTUS and make further judgements on the meaning of words.
Seems like your stuck with it.
Sandra Fluke is in mourning today...
Attachment 46215
The companies in the cases are 'closely held corporations' owned and controlled by members of a single family and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs . SCOTUS did not extend it to publicly held corporations ,suggesting that it may revist the issue if a public corporation gets standing .
SCOTUS also said that this is a limted case concerning onlythe contraceptive mandate ,and that SCOTUS would reject broad religious claims ie. discrimination against gay employees under 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act'(RFRA) .
The case also only revolves around four of the most popular types of contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby already covers many other forms. There are still other cases pending in the lower courts that have yet to be decided.
btw ,Hobby Lobby would've never sued if this was about contraception ,as Huffpo suggests . It was the abortion pill they could not abide to.
Yup, but that didn’t stop Ginsburg from having a stroke in his dissent.
There will be much similar wailing and gnashing of teeth today.Quote:
In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 PM. |