- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS hears case on recess appointments
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:07 pm
And at the outset it isn't looking good:
LINK
Kagan is an Obama appointee and one of the more liberal members. But it appears she's questioning his actions, recognizing that the Senate decides when it is and isn't in session.
LINK
Kagan is an Obama appointee and one of the more liberal members. But it appears she's questioning his actions, recognizing that the Senate decides when it is and isn't in session.
3
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:08 pm to Quidam65
quote:
SCOTUS hears case on recess appointments
Read about this the other day... Going to be interesting to say the least.
I don't see how they can say he has the right to appoint since the Senate specifically did what they did to show that they were still in session.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:10 pm to Quidam65
Ginsburg will vote to uphold. Bryer, I don't know. Sotomayer and Kagan? I think they will vote to strike down. I'll be shocked if the decision if less than 6 or 7 votes.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:13 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
I'll be shocked if the decision if less than 6 or 7 votes.
And if they uphold the lower courts ruling saying that the appointments were illegal... Instantaneously, do his appointees get fired and any mandates they set forth get reversed?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:18 pm to Lsut81
quote:
And if they uphold the lower courts ruling saying that the appointments were illegal... Instantaneously, do his appointees get fired and any mandates they set forth get reversed?
Every decision by the National Labor Relations Board since those two were appointed would be vacated at the least, as they need at least three members for a quorum and there is only one member who was appointed legally.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:41 pm to teke184
quote:
Every decision by the National Labor Relations Board since those two were appointed would be vacated at the least, as they need at least three members for a quorum and there is only one member who was appointed legally.
Wasn't there a big case recently with the NLRB and Boeing? In regards to their SC Plant and the Washington Unions calling it retribution?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 12:44 pm to Lsut81
quote:quote:
Every decision by the National Labor Relations Board since those two were appointed would be vacated at the least, as they need at least three members for a quorum and there is only one member who was appointed legally.
Wasn't there a big case recently with the NLRB and Boeing? In regards to their SC Plant and the Washington Unions calling it retribution?
Yes, but I don't remember the decision on it.
I also find it hilarious that the unions at Boeing can threaten the company with strikes and holding up Dreamliner production yet opening a new plant in a Right To Work state is "retribution".
EDIT -
The case was withdrawn by the NLRB in December 2011. The NLRB's reasoning was that, with the machinists' union getting a new contract in Washington, the case is moot.
However, this came just as South Carolina was about to hold the 2012 GOP primary, which would have been a major chance for the various candidate to rail against the Obama Administration for screwing the state.
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 1:13 pm to Quidam65
I can't understand why this case made it to the Supreme Court. The constitution is pretty clear that the Senate makes its own rules regarding how it conducts its business. And determining when it is in session or recess is simply a matter of rulemaking.
Every Senator should be upset that this matter is being litigated by the Obama administration. It is an open challenge to the Senate and its role of advise and consent for high government offices.
Every Senator should be upset that this matter is being litigated by the Obama administration. It is an open challenge to the Senate and its role of advise and consent for high government offices.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 1:18 pm to teke184
quote:
Every decision by the National Labor Relations Board since those two were appointed would be vacated at the least, as they need at least three members for a quorum and there is only one member who was appointed legally.
Not true. People who didn't argue the unconstitutionality of it before have likely waived that argument. Hell, that was settled within the first five minutes of the argument.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 1:20 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
I can't understand why this case made it to the Supreme Court.
Because the pro forma session issue is relatively new. If the Senate says it isn't in recess, but in the same statement says it WILL NOT conduct business, it looks like an open attempt to thwart the President's recess appointment power.
I know it's a weak argument, but it did need to be litigated so after 200 years we finally know the scope of the power.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 2:43 pm to FalseProphet
This is interesting in view of the news today that this will be "Obama's year of action" in which he will use "his executive authority" to get things done. I wonder how this will shape the framework of exactly what they executive authority will be?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News