Jan
25
2013

Federal appeals court nixes Obama’s recess appointments.

Boom.

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

We got our specialists over at RedState working out the consequences to this one – the only thing that I’m a specialist at, frankly, is at being an absolutely insufferable [expletive deleted] – but the short version is that if this gets upheld by the Supremes (and the thinking is that the court is going to either uphold the smaller decision 7-2, or 9-0) then pretty much every favor Barack Obama’s done Big Labor lately ain’t worth diddly.

Yes.  Weep, my droogies.  Weep.

Moe Lane

PS: Constitutional scholar, my [expletive deleted].

19 Comments

  • earlgrey says:

    Any truth to the rumor that the Administration is trying to figure out a way to portray the recess appointments as a “tax”. He’s sure to win that way.

    • Lady Penguin says:

      Now, EG, we take our victories where we can, though you make a good point. :)

      The more the effects of Obamacare are revealed, the worse I think of Chief Justice Roberts and his absolutely wrong decision. Obamacare represents everything the Founders fought against King George for, everything.

      • earlgrey says:

        Yes Lady Penguin you are right. I find myself not really bitter about what dems do, but yes I am very bitter about what supposed conservatives, supposed republicans do.

        And when I am bitter, that maturity level of my comments takes a huge dip.

      • acat says:

        I remain of the opinion, Lady Penguin, that the Roberts decision – while distasteful – was necessary in part to preserve the power of the court.
        .
        The Roberts decision is, as I understand it, rather narrow, and does not preclude other legal attacks on Obamacare…
        .
        All that said, I am very much hopeful that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito remain healthy… and while it may be unkind of me, I wish Ginsberg and Breyer ill health and failing mental faculties… in 2014.
        .
        Mew

      • Herp McDerp says:

        The more the effects of Obamacare are revealed, the worse I think of Chief Justice Roberts and his absolutely wrong decision.
         
        I still think that Roberts changed his decision as the result of some kind of Chicago Way pressure. It had Obama’s modus operandi of blackmailing or eliminating his opposition written all over it.

        • acat says:

          I have considered that, Herp .. but I think Occam would conclude the simpler explanation is that Roberts recognized if he threw out Obamacare, he’d be putting the court in the crosshairs of the Obama administration..
          .
          Roberts’ “decision” just postponed a decision on Obamacare .. it is a narrow ruling, it did not say the entire thing is good .. just that the penalty is a tax.
          .
          As Hobby Lobby, Liberty University, Wheaton College, and others are busily proving, there’s still plenty of other ways to blow it up, and at a point when Obama *can’t* use his campaign to demonize the court.
          .
          When I consider what an out of control executive *and a neutered court* looks like .. I cringe.
          .
          Mew

          • Herp McDerp says:

            … I think Occam would conclude the simpler explanation is that Roberts recognized if he threw out Obamacare, he’d be putting the court in the crosshairs of the Obama administration..
             
            Quite possibly … but the Supreme Court IS in the crosshairs of the administration, and it will be until President Obama can appoint reliable “progressives” to fill any vacancies created by by Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Kennedy.
             
            They had it, and then something made Roberts change his mind. I think there was more behind his flip-flop than concern for the Court’s reputation … and whatever it was, I suspect it was nasty.

          • Moe_Lane says:

            What probably changed Roberts’ mind was that he figured out a way to rule that the damned mandate was a tax without also having to rule that the whole suite of lawsuits needed to be tossed out because nobody was harmed by said tax yet. The above case actually does show just how reluctant the courts are to overturn legislative and executive branch decisions; they don’t like the kinds of headaches they get when they do overturn them, particularly with the Awful Example of Roe v. Wade looming over them*.

            Frankly, we were lucky to get the Kommerz Klawz Roolz Awl argument gut-shot once and for all.

            *I think that it was Sotomayor who said recently that RvW has been making the court’s life miserable for decades.

  • […] Moe Lane of Red State adds, “the short version is that if this gets upheld by the Supremes (and the thinking is that the court is going to either uphold the smaller decision 7-2, or 9-0) then pretty much every favor Barack Obama’s done Big Labor lately ain’t worth diddly.” […]

  • zamoose says:

    “Weep”? I thought we were s’posed to drink, and drink deeply of the tears of our “friends” across the aisle?

    • acat says:

      I am NOT drinking .. that! No idea what I could catch from .. that!
      .
      Mew

      • earlgrey says:

        Cats drink milk, right?

        • acat says:

          Take a look at the .. rogues gallery is being *kind* .. of Dems in D.C.
          .
          I ask, earlgrey .. would you touch *anything* that fell off Waxman or Frank or Boxer or Durbin or Feinstein without gloves, let alone put it into your mouth?
          .
          Cats drink milk, yes .. we also have *standards*.
          .
          Mew

  • BigGator5 says:

    Via Hot Air, recess appointments may “all but disappear” thanks to Obama’s overreach.

  • Finrod says:

    (Nelson Muntz voice) HA ha!

  • […] Driscoll: Moe Lane of Red State adds, “the short version is that if this gets upheld by the Supremes (and the thinking is that the […]

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com