CSNbbs

*splat*

our "constitutional scholar" in the oval office certainly doesn't seem to know much about the constitution.

Quote:Supreme Court strikes down President Obama's recess appointments

The Supreme Court has ruled President Obama exceeded his power under the Constitution by filling federal positions when the Senate was on a brief break.

But the narrow ruling also preserved the president's power to make recess appointments in general.

While the president is authorized to fill "vacancies" while the Senate is on "recess," the justices decided in a 9-0 ruling that the Senate was not on a true recess in January of 2012 when Obama filled three seats on the National Labor Relations Board.

The decision is a rebuke to the president, but its short-term impact on Obama could be muted. Earlier this year, the Democratic-controlled Senate scrapped a long-standing filibuster rule that had allowed the current Republican minority to block a vote on many of his nominees.

Linky

Good. We can also point out that the WH is wasting the valuable time of the SC w/ it frivolous antics.

It will have little practical effect, but it's nice to see our lord and savior getting a little slice of humble pie.

(06-26-2014 09:40 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]It will have little practical effect, but it's nice to see our lord and savior getting a little slice of humble pie.

9-0

I'm not sure if this invalidates all of the rulings of the now illegitimate NLRB.

What enforcement powers does the SS have?

this further expands the narrative of a rogue administration playing havoc with the constitution, as well as supporting the notion of an utterly incompetent administration.

other than the "gimme" that john roberts gave obama on ACA (in which he had to rewrite the damn law to make it constitutional), doesn't this administration have a miserable record at the SCOTUS?

so miserable, in fact, that it's absurd to keep referring to him as a "constitutional scholar" -- especially when he was really a guest lecturer?

Wonder if this adds amunition to Boehner's plan to sue obammy.

(06-26-2014 11:16 AM)bevotex Wrote: [ -> ]Wonder if this adds amunition to Boehner's plan to sue obammy.

Idiot moves like this lawsuit are how Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.

The taxpayer will foot the bill for both sides.

Hooray.

I don't mind the lawsuit. Just wonder why it wasn't
done earlier though. Seems election motivated.

(06-26-2014 11:20 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 11:16 AM)bevotex Wrote: [ -> ]Wonder if this adds amunition to Boehner's plan to sue obammy.

Idiot moves like this lawsuit are how Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.

The taxpayer will foot the bill for both sides.

Hooray.

Yeah, but you know he will go through with it.

9-0. THAT is a solid rebuke.

As far as the lawsuit Boehner is proposing, that is the only vehicle they have to bring things like this in front of the SC. It's not as if DOJ and the contemptible Holder are going to do anything about a lawless administration.

And yes. I would imagine this invalidates anything that rogue NLRB did while the illegal squatters where siting on the board. Their rulings can simply be ignored as if they never happened.

President Obama’s team suffered their twelfth unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court in the legal challenge to the so-called recess appointments made when Congress was not actually in recess, a string of defeats that only represents “the tip of the iceberg,” according to Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah).

“Not every case in which the president has exceeded his authority has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, told National Review Online. “The fact that his track record is as bad as it is in the Supreme Court . . . is yet another indication of the fact that we’ve got a president who is playing fast and loose with the Constitution.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381...oel-gehrke

(06-26-2014 11:20 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 11:16 AM)bevotex Wrote: [ -> ]Wonder if this adds amunition to Boehner's plan to sue obammy.

Idiot moves like this lawsuit are how Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.

The taxpayer will foot the bill for both sides.

Hooray.

I think it's a longshot, but I can't see how legal expense becomes an argument against it. cost isn't even a drop in a bucket, it's a drop in an ocean.

what is happening is unprecedented, and it is apparent that our system of checks and balances seems to just presume that the men and women in charge of the three branches of government are trustworthy and qualified to hold the authority with which they are constitutionally endowed. short of impeachment, our system doesn't have an established remedy for a constitutionally reckless president.

so, I'm willing to cut boehner, who is sort of a retard anyway, some slack while he tries to work through this.

(06-26-2014 11:16 AM)bevotex Wrote: [ -> ]Wonder if this adds amunition to Boehner's plan to sue obammy.

it absolutely reinforces the legal theory behind boehner's lawsuit; that the president is constitutionally reckless, and is assuming powers that are beyond his scope.

and the timing couldn't be worse for the president. these things happened bang-bang.

with filibuster reform it shouldn't matter going forward...

(06-26-2014 12:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]with filibuster reform it shouldn't matter going forward...

I can't wait to hear Harry Reid and you libs scream about that reform when the Republicans retake the Senate. It will be priceless.

(06-26-2014 12:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 12:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]with filibuster reform it shouldn't matter going forward...

I can't wait to here Harry Reid and you libs scream about that reform when the Republicans retake the Senate. It will be priceless.

more blanket assumptions from you...I dislike a obstructionist stance to US government no matter whose taking it.

(06-26-2014 12:14 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 12:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 12:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]with filibuster reform it shouldn't matter going forward...

I can't wait to here Harry Reid and you libs scream about that reform when the Republicans retake the Senate. It will be priceless.

more blanket assumptions from you...I dislike a obstructionist stance to US government no matter whose taking it.

So you've penned that letter to that vicious partisan hack Reid, telling him to move on the more than 200 bills sent to the Senate by the House?

Talk about obstructionist.

(06-26-2014 12:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 12:14 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 12:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2014 12:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]with filibuster reform it shouldn't matter going forward...

I can't wait to here Harry Reid and you libs scream about that reform when the Republicans retake the Senate. It will be priceless.

more blanket assumptions from you...I dislike a obstructionist stance to US government no matter whose taking it.

So you've penned that letter to that vicious partisan hack Reid, telling him to move on the more than 200 bills sent to the Senate by the House?

Talk about obstructionist.

I don't live in Nevada...so no, I haven't.