Obama Sued Over Illegal NLRB NON-Recess Appointments (Harry Reid, Congress, impeachment)

[sanrene]

The first, to be followed by a second, just as soon as Cordray enacts any rules or regulations.

Obama Administration | Taken To Court | Recess Appointments | The Daily Caller

Without legitimate appointments, they can’t participate in the lawsuit, Mix told The Daily Caller. And without their participation the board does have the quorum needed to implement the new regulations that the foundation opposes.

The president’s claim that he can determine when the Senate is in recess is a constitutional issue, he added, because it is an effort to expand the president’s ability to appoint people whose nominations elected Senators oppose.

Again, the president doesn't get to decide when the Senate, a co-equal branch of government, is in session.

But isn't it interesting the Senate DID indeed pass legislation that the president signed while they engaged in these pro forma sessions?

[doctrain]

Originally Posted by sanrene

The first, to be followed by a second, just as soon as Cordray enacts any rules or regulations.

Obama Administration | Taken To Court | Recess Appointments | The Daily Caller



Again, the president doesn't get to decide when the Senate, a co-equal branch of government, is in session.

But isn't it interesting the Senate DID indeed pass legislation that the president signed while they engaged in these pro forma sessions?

Good for Mark Mix.

[subsound]

The decision was already discussed, made, and published for the world to see. Just because anyone can file a lawsuit and the court clerk must accept anything that is remotely filled in correctly doesn't automatically mean the lawsuit is valid.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by subsound

The decision was already discussed, made, and published for the world to see. Just because anyone can file a lawsuit and the court clerk must accept anything that is remotely filled in correctly doesn't automatically mean the lawsuit is valid.

I read your whole link and failed to see anything about how long these people could serve. I pointed out the part of the Constitution that talks about recess appointments that can be made when the Senate is not in session last night. It says that the appointed people can serve till the next session of the Senate is over. I would say that they can serve till October or at the latest December of 2012 according to those words.

Now you must realize that I am a strict constructionist and all of Obama's people of the legal variety, like Holder, are very loose constructionists. Do I have to quote that part for you again?

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by subsound

The decision was already discussed, made, and published for the world to see. Just because anyone can file a lawsuit and the court clerk must accept anything that is remotely filled in correctly doesn't automatically mean the lawsuit is valid.

You know, we can all imagine what your response would be if Bush had made recess appointments when the Senate was NOT in recess.

Doesn't it bother you the least little bit that this president thinks HE can declare when the Senate is in session..or not?

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Huh? Yeah...trolling...NOT news that the POGarbage POTUS is being sued for his illegal, unconstitutional NONrecess appointments.

Democrats/Left approve....who would have thought?

Oh, in case you didn't realize, Dirty Harry Reid used the very SAME pro forma sessions to thwart Bush recess appointments...only difference...Bush respected a co-equal branch of government. Obama hasn't.

First challenge on new Obama appointees : SCOTUSblog



Oh, one other thing the Left would be howling about. ALL three of these illegal appointments to the NLRB were made just DAYS before the holiday break, leaving no time at all for the Senate to perform theri constitutional duty of advise and consent.

I think that the courts move so slowly that this round of 3 to the NLRB could well put Boeing out of business. I don't even care though since they are leaving their Wichita manufacturing branch and not all of them were union workers either because of Kansas law. I wonder who they will attack next.

[Clark Park]

It will be interesting to see how this will play out.

My prediction: Obama will win and the suit will fail.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

It will be interesting to see how this will play out.

My prediction: Obama will win and the suit will fail.

He lost the last one, from 2010, where SCOTUS ruled the board needed at least 3 for a quorum. Most times courts don't like to get involved with Congress and the executive on constitutional trespassing...but this is important enough for them and they need to put obama back in his place.

ANYBODY reading the facts and history of what he did MUST come to the conclusion that his appointments are illegal.

Just answer a question;

Does the president have the authority to declare to a co-equal branch of government if and when they are in session?

[linicx]

I personally am having a bit of a problem with a law professor and constitutional scholar that doesn't seem to know much about the subject. ??? Curious indeed. I think if the White House has bad legal council then fix it.

However, up to this point this hubbub is all allegations, legal questionss, a little spin and a lot of posturing with no clear answers or any legal decision in cite.

[trlhiker]

If this is so illegal and unconstitutional then why isn't the house and the senate starting impeachment proceedings? I will tell you why, because they know it is not. Plan and simple.