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 ....

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.

---

It doesn't say during a recess.
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.

Quote:

---

Please, no Scalia's originalist interpretation.

---

too bad . out of all the justices on SCOTUS ,his are more often correct.

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.

Quote:

---

I begin to wonder is there actually anyone in charge

---

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.

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

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 --
(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.

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.
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.

---

Um, no. If you want a "Reasonable" amendment let's do term limits for Congress.

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 .