SCOTUS On Recess Appointments

Looking like this lawless administration getting shot down in court again is the way to bet:

Even liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who was perhaps most favorable to the president’s case, expressed puzzlement at the administration’s claim that Congress was actually in a lengthy recess at the time Obama acted. Breyer noted that if the Senate recessed it ran afoul of the Constitution by failing to notify the House.

“Would you write an opinion that [says] the Senate of the United States has violated two provisions of the Constitution?” Breyer asked Verrilli.

Of course, at some point, they’ll just start defying the Supreme Court as well. The only real Constitutional solution to this president is impeachment and removal.

[Update a while later]

I don’t know who has the tougher job when it comes to defending this administration, Carney or Verilli.

21 thoughts on “SCOTUS On Recess Appointments”

  1. The impeachment process is fundamentally broken as written – it relies upon people actually caring about Truth.

    I can’t quite decide what it -should- look like. I’m leaning toward allowing the House to bring a one-sentence charge forward. The Senate -must- vote on it by having each Senator must read the full charge as written aloud for posterity with the added words “I believe” or “I do not believe”.

    That is: (hypothetically)
    House: ‘We feel that: The President being caught with a dead girl, live boy and a losing the nuclear football is worthy of removal from office.”
    Senate: Talks/debates/etc.
    Senate: Votes one by one by reading one of these two verbatim-
    “I believe: The President being caught with a dead girl, live boy and a losing the nuclear football is worthy of removal from office.”

    or
    “I do not believe:The President being caught with a dead girl, live boy and a losing the nuclear football is worthy of removal from office.”

    This still won’t make them care directly, but it does mean that next time around in their home districts will have some direct ammo.

    The whole last week has revolved around Cristie hiring vindictive assholes – and that being impeach-worthy. Well, Obama’s certainly (a) guilty of hiring even worse peeps, and (b) he doesn’t even bother firing them.

    1. Why do you have politicians watching the politicians?

      Ya know, in Australia we have these people who ensure politicians don’t break the law. We call them: the police.

      But I’m sure the American system is better 🙂

          1. The FBI is supposed to be independent and often investigates local sheriff or police departments but on the national level it doesn’t work as well for the reasons Rand mentioned.

      1. Obama’s new pick to head the DOJ Civil Rights Division is the lawyer who was instrumental to the whole “free Mumia” movement. The Fraternal Order of Police is not amused. I don’t think police would have any success against such an array of race-baiting hustlers who are in charge of the police.

        Anyway, maybe Obama will have to bypass Senate confirmation by giving him a recess appointment.

  2. Who needs something as obsolete as the Constitution and Rule of Law when someone as awesome as Obama is president?!

    One nation. One people. One leader! Heil Obama!

  3. “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.”

    Sounds like the constitution is a bit vague on what’s a recess

    1. Please read further in the Constitution, and be enlightened…

      Article 1, Section 5 excerpts:

      Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

      “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

      So, the Senate determines its own proceedings, which includes when it goes into recess. In addition, it must notify the House and get the House’s consent to go into recess for more than three days.

      The Senate never declared it was in recess. That is all that matters.

      To say that the President can determine when another branch is out of session is one of the most absurd and stupid ideas to come out of this administration, not to mention dangerous and showing his utter contempt for the limits placed on him (cue BUUUUUUUSH here). Even if you think pro forma sessions are dumb, it is not within the President’s authority to do anything about it. He will just have to sit and suffer through it. He can always make political noise about it, but that’s about it.

      I know you are pretty much in love with Obama, but some day he will be out of office and some day a Republican will be president. On that day you will not want a Republican president to have the authority you are so flippant about Obama claiming to have.

      1. now this part says “Adjourn” not Recess, but yeah, the senate and the house get to
        determine when they are in recess. during the “Session”.

        The fine point comes when they are out of session.

        1. You really cannot be that dense. You must be deliberately trying to deceive. It will sure be fun watching your mind explode when the next Republican president is elected.

          1. I haven’t read the details on this one, but, appointments made over the legislative weekend probably won’t stand as “Recess” appointments, but appointments
            made over August or the Winter Holiday, will probably stand as “Recess”.

            The whole thing is probably going to get mooted, the senate ended fillibusters
            on nominees, so, the whole backlog is coming undone.

          2. Should a political miracle occur and Republicans win control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, I’d love to see the new leader go before the cameras and say, “We intend to run the Senate with the same courtesy and consideration for minority views as Harry Reid has demonstrated for the past 8 years.”

            It’d be even better if Harry Reid was standing beside the new leader when he said it, just to see the look on his face.

          3. The point isn’t moot because any rulings made by the illegally appointed NLRB board members will be overturned.

  4. If SCOTUS rules as expected, it seems reasonable to predict that there will be no more recesses, and therefore no more recess appointments, whenever the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties.

  5. Perhaps it will mean presidents will have to put forward nominees that appeal to more than the ideological wing of their party. Obama would have had better luck if he chose people who had more merit and less ideology or if Obama’s ideology was slightly to the right of Hugo Chavez.

Comments are closed.