E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Handing a huge legal victory to Republicans, a federal appeals court in Washington has ruled that a president can make recess appointments only during a congressional recess when the vacancies arise.
The ruling came Friday from a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Business groups challenged last year's recess appointments to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, and the court ruled today in their favor.
A court of appeals has struck down Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray's appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and if today's ruling stands, it will eliminate a power that presidents of both parties have used for over a century. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
"The filling up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done during the same recess in which the vacancy arose," the court said.
Last January, President Barack Obama infuriated Senate Republicans by naming Richard Cordray to be director of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and by putting three new members on the NLRB. (Obama re-nominated Cordray to a full appointment at the same position on Thursday.)
"It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward," House Speaker John Boehner said at the time. "I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."
The court ruled today on a challenge to the appointments brought by a Pacific Northwest soft drink bottler who lost a union dispute before the NLRB. The company claimed that the president had no power to appoint the new NLRB members, and that the subsequent action by the board therefore lacked legitimacy.
At the core of the dispute is Article II of the Constitution, setting out the president's duties and authorities. They include "the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."
During the nation's first century, Congress was in session less than half a year. The recess appointment power allowed the president to keep the government functioning by filling important jobs when the Senate was not around to act on nominations.
"There is no reason the Framers would have permitted the President to wait until some future intersession recess to make a recess appointment, for the Senate would have been sitting in session during the intervening period and available to consider nominations," the court said today.
In modern times, presidents of both parties have used the power to make appointments during much shorter congressional recesses in the summer and around holidays.
But during the George H.W. Bush administration, Democrats came up with the idea of pro forma sessions, in which the body was gaveled to order then immediately adjourned for another few days. They claimed that the Senate remained in session and recess appointments could not be made. Senate Republicans have since continued the pro forma practice.
"Such short intra-session breaks are not recesses," the bottling company argued. "Otherwise, every weekend, night, or lunch break would be a 'recess' too."
Senate Republicans joined the lawsuit. They argued that by declaring the Senate incapable of performing its functions during the pro-forma sessions, "the President usurped the Senate's control of its own procedures. And by appointing officers without the Senate's consent, he took away its right to review and reject his nominations."
The Obama Justice Department argued that the pro-forma procedures, each lasting less than a minute, are a sham and do not mean the Senate was actually in session. "It could not provide advice or consent on presidential nominations during that 20-day period," government lawyers argue.
In agreeing to its holiday break, Justice Department lawyers note, the Senate "provided by order that 'no business' would be conducted."
The government lawyers said there's nothing mysterious about the meaning of the word recess -- "a break by the Senate from its usual business, such as periods in which the Framers anticipated that senators would return to their respective states."
"The pro forma sessions were not designed to permit the Senate to do business, but rather to ensure that no business was done," the Justice Department claimed.
President Obama invoked the recess appointment power 32 times during his first term to fill vacancies in full-time government positions, though he has not made any since last January's controversy. President Clinton made 95 recess appointments during his administration. President George W. Bush used the power 99 times.
If, as seems likely, the issue gets to the Supreme Court, the justices could settle a passionate debate over a presidential power used hundreds of times, stirring controversy since the beginning.
Saying they were constitutionally invalid, a federal appeals court rejects President Obama's "recess" appointments to a labor board last year. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Leave a Comment:
Well, if the obstructionist on the right would do their damn J-O-B this wouldn't even be an issue!
Why is the house in recess AGAIN until February 6th?
Wait, Otis & Eric needed today off to march for abortion rights on the tax payers dime!
How many days have they worked since January 2nd?
Interesting tidbit;
Shame on that evwill Obama! lol
Edit: Should read anti-abortion
Whoops! lol
Good morning Feisty.
I agree to a point with your comment.
It's my opinion that the only "recesses" for our elected officials should be those which reflect that of the general population. I'd like to see our elected officials actually doing their jobs in session more than single digit days every month.
Our elected officials want everyone to believe that their jobs are so difficult and time consuming that they need time away to go to their respective states to confer with their constituents to have their voices heard. Almost couldn't be further from the truth.
We need to revamp our laws to require more time beng spent on the job in Washington and accomplishing the necessary goals to put this country back on it's feet and to keep it there.
People across this country in a vast array of career choices have to do the same every day/week/month/year with 2 days off or the occasional 3 day weekend. Our elected officials need to do the same or choose another career path.
By making changes to the amount of time the elected people are in Washington it would eliminate the want/need for a president to do what we are discussing at this time.
Where are the cops when we need them? Why isn't there a ruling that Teapublicans can't block nominations and appointments in the first place? The underhanded tactics from the rightwing is why the Democrats need to start pushing back, even taking the chance it won't work. But just PUSH BACK!
This Failibuster agreement in which the GOP/TP have been given another two years to prove their word/handshake is worth a sh!t has to be the last. I know Reid did not have the votes he needed, so don't place ALL the blame at his feet. In fact FR, how about an article naming names on that fiasco instead of this article?
Memo to all -- We no longer say "pro-life" rather we say "pro-birth." Obviously these ignoramuses only care about fertilized eggs and not actual living human beings. Don't let them get away with the hypocrisy, ever.
This is simply too damn funny .... Obama has abused his authority once again, finally got "bitch-slapped" by the courts, and BIIGGG FEASTY rushes in to put the blame somewhere else ! ROTFLMAO !!
Does this mean Cordray is bogus and will have to return his pay since he was appointed illegally ?
Funny to hear liberals complaining about how much time Congress needs to spend working, when Democrats in the senate have not been able to produce a budget in almost four years. Seems like time spent working versus actually getting something done are two very different issues. No doubt Democrats in the senate will all claim to have been working hard for the American people the past four years, but just never found the time to come up with a budget. Couldn't shoehorn it in to their monster workload.
I wonder what part of the story the left wingers forgot to read, maybe it's this part: "But during the George H.W. Bush administration, Democrats came up with the idea of pro forma sessions, in which the body was gaveled to order then immediately adjourned for another few days. They claimed that the Senate remained in session and recess appointments could not be made. Senate Republicans have since continued the pro forma practice." It appears this was started by the Democrats, now they are in power they feel it shouldn't count anymore, can you say HYPOCRITES.
Now you know why the Senate didn't go as far with revising the filibuster rule like the left wanted, because they knew they would loose control of the Senate one day. Remember "what goes around comes around" , or something like that.
I can remind you of the same unintended consequences. Republicans have done a lot of things they thought would help them out and in the end they got bit in the ass.
We can't just leave all of these positions unfilled, wtf is supposed to happen?
hahahaha ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Lib50 - We are much better off with those positions vacant than with who Obama wants to fill them with.
funny that somehow our Constitution just got in the way.... follow the Constitution and the Judges won't overturn your appointments
Feisty-Just curious...Do you have a job? You seem to be highly intellegent,but you do tend to spend alot of usefull time wasting away in chat rooms.
That should read "reject and review"
does not the senate have a directed responsibility to review and vote on all appointments? and if they fillabuster such vote arent they neglecting their directed responsibilities?
Yes they are neglecting their responsibilities. Yet when given the opportunity to rewrite the filibuster rules the Senate majority leader declined to make real lasting changes. He retreated on the nuclear option to lower the fillibuster threshold. He backed down.
Seems the status quo is what is desired in the Senate's Democratic leadership - stale, male and turn tail.
Look forward to less appointments and more filibusters - the Senate way.
FYI, I don't agree much with the recess appointment executive actions - It gave us wacks like John Bolton.
YellowMoron, the libtards refused to accept John Bolton, even though he was a legitimate recess appointment. As soon as the libtards came back they forced him out. Yep, libtards refusing to follow the rules, as usual. Pay attention, libtard.
President Obama invoked the recess appointment power 32 times during his first term to fill vacancies in full-time government positions, though he has not made any since last January's controversy. President Clinton made 95 recess appointments during his administration. President George W. Bush used the power 99 times.
Dictators up and down the line ... or is that label reserved only for the most recent President?
They were not in recess therefore he can't make a recess appointment.
Maybe I can skip work in the evening and nap. Then when the boss calls, I can say I'm working , even though I'm not at the work site.
The Supreme Court will have to handle this issue.
Dictators up and down the line ... or is that label reserved only for the most recent President?
Nope, it applies to all of them.
So the three appointees, are null and void?
@ Job1
Supreme will rule the same. There is that little thing called the constitution. I guess it does mean something
Executive overreach is a bad thing no matter who is President and the courts should always rule on the side of restraint...
if the right gives up their right of review by establishing the filabuster, then the president should have the right to push ahead for the matter of a safe and secured government.
My only argument with 'The Court' was with its cancellation after 6 brilliant episodes in 2002. Sally Field was outstanding. Perhaps learning was viewed as regressive.
dangerfield is once again the voice of reason!
well, is it challenged at supreme? certainly sen reid did not help this at all. 4 more years of obstruction by the right? no 2 more and then lights out, and please find a replacement for reid.
What you libtards don't want to acknowledge is these appointments are NOT recess appointments. They were called recess appointments by King Hussein, but they were made while Congress was in session. Stoopid libtard sheep. By the way, why is lib-central hiding this? They have a deep and resonating story front and center about how an unused phone got charged $300, but this story is buried. Nope, no agenda here. And Fisty, good job getting first again. What a life you must lead.
catlover - as usual the ignorant on the right think we have a King. We don't we have a very good President. And, the President has used recess appointments 23 times to Bush's 99. Now idiot - try again!
Oh and anyone who uses the disgusting "tard" in any word shows the lowlife and disgusting person they are. And, in your case I use the word "person" loosely! You show your ignorance every time you post using that word. Small children know better than you do and clearly have more class.
Guess President Obama is a very bad, ineffective King, catlover! Dang It!
But, who is King Hussein, can you name the country, catlover?
Please do think before you post, and remember, "Name-calling is not reasoned debate"!
Yo, pussyhater - how can a story be front and center and buried at the same time? Got sense or are you just simply stoopid?
What do you libtards even mean? RedMoron - you're talking about two different things. I guess it's easy when you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Chilled, you know exactly what I mean. Stoopid libtard.
DoneSeekingCan'tFindSanity, thanks for following me. Good to know I've got a fan (stalker). Eeww.
Stoopid libtards are so funny.
catlover### says
NO, NO, I do not know what you mean!...
Chilled - HAHAHAHA Stoopid libtard.
catlover - even if you dropped money behind you, no one would stalk you! No one is THAT desperate!
Well catlover, you seem to keep coughing up the same nonsense. Must be the fur-balls!
Have a nice weekend!
chilled - good one but UGH!
StillSeeking, HAHAHAHA Stoopid libtard. You criticize me for using the suffix "tard", then in the same comment you insult me by saying I have an IQ less than 40. Who's the bigot here? HAHAHA stoopid libtard.
seeking -- obama is the first president that chose to define when the senate is in session, which constitutionally belongs to the senate. he has now been appropriately reprimanded for doing so.
in your infinite wisdom can you explain why it was ok to use this democrat tactic of a pro forma session against bush appointments but was not ok for this senate democrat tactic of a pro forma session to be used against obama appointments?
That statement in itself tells the story.
So does your avatar, Jobless.
cat.. i noticed this too, hiding this story. It's been all over CNN. Fox today. Guess MSNBC needed time to recover and figure out if the editing dept could get away with anything.
The Supreme Court will side with the President on this issue. The GOP/Teabeggers only have a very short so-called 'upperhand.'
Yup, Progressive....I remember how many lower courts ruled the ACA (ObamaCares) unconstitutional!
But, the TeaPeople have a morsel to chew on!
I'm suprised that NBC even ran this story! Kudos to you Pete! I hope you don't get fired for going against the grain...
Lil Michael - (transvestite huh?) If your reading comprehension skills were better you'd see that NBC posts real news. I realize it's not something you're used to since FOX is your bible and we all know they print nothing close to facts!
oh, and you still claim to be an independant Seeking?
So, KeepSeeking, in one post you criticize me for using the lib-tactic of name calling, then your very next post you do the same. I guess your complaint is really that you believe name-calling is only allowed for lib-tards. Stoopid libtard sheep. Keep Seeking libtard. But don't keep seeking real news here at lib-central. Only a true libtard like you believes it will be found here. Good to know you've got such a hard-on for Fox, though. That means they're making a real difference. Stoopid libtards are so much fun. HAHAHAHHA
catlover - I don't care if you call someone an idiot or a moron but the "tard" word is very disgusting and even small children know better than to use it. It shows a lack of integrity and character from anyone who uses it. I could not care less about any other name you call anyone but "tard" is beneath any adult who has any common sense.
Again, your post shows what a lowlife gutter dweller you are and you need to post it for all to see. You truly are contemptable. But, you won't understand - it takes an IQ over 40 to actually comprehend what I'm saying.
Actually, libtard, my IQ is somewhere north of 140, but we won't let that get in our way, will we? I try hard to dumb it down for you stoopid libtards. I'll ask at my next Mensa gathering if others feel the same. Stoopid libtards. Oh, why does "tard" offend you so? Sticks and stones...
catlover - your IQ is nowhere near 140 - clearly nothing north of 70. Believe me - if you got any dumber, dirt would laugh at you! And, trust me, you've never been NEAR a Mensa meeting - we wouldn't let you in the door!
If you don't know why "tard" is offensive to any sensible adult you were clearly raised in a very ignorant family and educational system - I'm guessing Texas or Alabama.
Take a trip to Denver. We'll talk at the next meeting. By the way, you didn't answer why you feel it is not okay to add "tard" to a word for emphasis, but it is okay for you to imply a person is retarded. Yes, I use the long-standing but currently politically-incorrect term for people will low intelligence. Got an answer?
I usually don't point out typo's by anyone but in this case I'll make an exception.
Catlover589 claims to have an IQ north of 140 and a member of Mensa.
How does a Mensa member with an IQ above 140 mispell the word "STUPID" in two separate statements? See the spelling "STOOPID" in both #8.3 and 8.5.
nomoresameo - great post but catlover isn't worth reading. And, clearly his/her IQ is nowhere north of 70. There is a reason that IGNORE option is there and catlover's photo is right next to the option!
You guys are funny libtards. That isn't a typo. If you read my posts as much as StillSeeking does, you'll see I nearly always spell it that way. For effect. Of course, StillSeeking didn't want to point that out to you. HAHAHAHA Stoopid libtards are so much fun.
If you are out of of the office and not in town, you are on recess. Pretty simple fact.
All this talk about mensa and stupid...
Interesting fact "mensa" means stupid in Spanish. Or you should use "menso" if the gender dictates. Sort of a more derogatory word than estupida/o or tonta/o.
In some circles it wouldn't be looked at too highly if you were proud of being a mensa.
Yellowdog - did not know that! Learn something new every day - and I had 5 years of Spanish. Have to admit I remember very little. As with any language - if you don't use it you forget.
YellowDog, In Latin it means table. Referring to the round table of lore where all are equal. Pay attention. Stoopid libtard.
StillSeeking, five years of Spanish and you didn't know "menso"? Brilliant. By the way, why did it take you five years to get through high school? HAHAHAHA Stoopid libtard.
As a yellowdog, usually don't pay attention to catlovers. Nor do I have interest in those who favor the etymology of wording from long dead languages.
That is just me. For now in the spirit of equality I will allow you to "amaze" us with your intellectual postings - snark off.
Seeking perhaps this is one to disregard? He doesn't bring much to the table/mensa.
@ Seeking
Incredibly funny that you're so tired of the scum sucking comments that people post. I do to. Why don't you try not doing it then. I noticed you on the gun control thing where someone posted a respectable post with no derogatory statements at all. What do you do? You plastered him with something to the effect of stupid republicans.
King Obama doesn't get to decide when the senate is in session.
I don't think that's even a close call. By the vote of the justices, they didn't think so either.
seeking sanity cant get over the simple fact that Obama is president not Bush. So shouldnt Obama be above the past Presidents and go by the book, follow the laws we have? it is no longer Bush;s fault, Obama is in his second term..treat him with that respect since its on his watch.
So they just realized King Obama does unconstitutional moves. Maybe because he don't believe in our Constitutional and steps on it every chance he gets! Good for the courts to realize he is unconstitutional. lol
relggneh - you mean like the 99 times Bush used it? You righties have no common sense at all and you're all so eager to prove it! Well - you have!
Hey libtard, Bush never used a RECESS appointment while Congress was in session. Get your lib-facts straight, libtard. HAHAHA Libtards are sooo much fun.
catlover - you are now on ignore because filth like you doesn't warrant the time to read. You're a crude, classless, vulgar and disgusting excuse for a person. But, I'm sure you've been told that before. Oh, and cats wouldn't go near trash like you!
Hey catlover, you simply have to realize "what" Speeking Insanity truly is .... she is an Obama apologist and a bootlicker for everything he does. She will pretend to take the high road with name calling before turning around and using such language as "moron" "filth", "filthy lying piece of gutter trash", "Crude and classless" (see above), "vulgar", "disgusting", "uneducated", "uninformed" towards ALL she disagrees with.... and she will also attempt to attack your IQ because she apparently has this self-proclaimed "SUPERIORITY COMPLEX" ! LOL !!
Hypocrisy and name-calling are usual trademarks of her frequently, irrational posts !
Thanks, Jim. That makes sense. All this time I thought it was a guy, but the female aspect makes more sense. Fun all the same, though. I obviously hit a nerve. Anything for the cause.
@ Seeking
You should ask for his hand in marriage. You and he can keep up on each other just fine. rotflmao
We had a new boss like this at work, he tried to clear house and heir his friends while we were on Christmas break. He got let go pretty quick.
First, my argument is that, if the Senate refuses to vote on a presidential nominee within a reasonalbe time, then it has waived it's advise and consent role and, implicitly, invited the president to make a recess appointment. That's common sense.
Second, John Boehner said: "It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward." No, that's a lie, John. It's clear that there is no working with republicans who purposely agreed with each other to blatantly refuse to work with the president ab initio. Further, John, working with republicans, (assuming, arguendo, that republicans were willing to work with the president, which they are not), would, by definition, be moving the country backwards, not forwards.
One more thing, John, G.W. Bush made a total of 171 recess appointments. I don't recall you complaining about Bush trampling on the Constitution then. But, when B. Obama makes a total of 32 recess appointments, that runs afoul of the Constitution? Or, rather, your vulgar partisan hackery is foul?
Loud Libtard, All the Latin in the world won't make what you say true. It only makes you look stoopid. Stoopid libtard. Why are all the other libtards saying Bush made 99 recess appointments? Does lib-math even work that way?
Conservatism is institutionalized stupidity, and you are the epitome of a conservative. I'll try to use smaller words and shorter sentences in the future, just for you.
They were not in recess. So.... he can't make a recess appointment. It is not that hard to understand.
Stop trying Towne. They don't want to hear that he indeed was outside of his authority when he did it. All you will get is GW this and GW that. And then when that doesn't work, they will go to Reagan and on and on. They just can't stop. I guess blind allegiance is better than no allegiance in the land of the liv/progressives.
Actually they were in recess, but they used a gimmick to push the idea that they are in session. To try to prevent anything from happening.
steve -- the gimmick to which you refer was invented by the senate democrats to prevent bush from making recess appointments. bush respected the senate, obama clearly does not.
billybob - - I don't care who created the gimmick. Just because someone else does something that is wrong does not make it alright for others. It would be pretty transparent to even a child that the purpose of this sham is to try and keep things from happening.
If I clocked in at work and then left, does that mean I performed the duties of my job? Certainly not.
Stevo, if your workplace rules said you were considered to have worked the day even if you clocked in and out at the same time, then you would be considered at your job. Same with Congress. Them's the rules, Bub. King Hussein doesn't feel the need to follow rules he doesn't like. That's just how a King is. Stoopid libtards.
catlover - Those are some ridiculous considerations. I am not sure that I would agree that those are the rules, but rather how some people have tried to bend those rules. And I really hope that there are some legal re-examinations of the subject. If it were a business the supervisor would have a strong case for congress abandoning their job or some type of time clock fraud.
LoudLiberal....did you not read the article.....No one is after Obama for recess appointments....
They are after his unconstitutional appointments that only he claimed were during a recess and he was wrong.
The law says he cannot fill a position using "recess appointment" if the Senate is in session....
The court found him guilty of an unconstitutional act....
While yes it will go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will also rule this way.
Based on this ruling, Obama could officially be brought up for impeachment and removal from office for breaking his oath of office and breaking the law....
Harry should have waited for this decision to come down before he moved on the filibuster. It is surely just as unlawful (not intended by the Framers) that the Congress should thwart the Executive by simply refusing to confirm anyone to the federal courts and to head executive agencies. Are we really to believe that a minority of Senators (41) could prevent the confirmation of a Secretaries of State and Defense, Attorney General, the CIA, the FBI, the Fed, etc., etc.? Where do we draw the reasonable line when the GOP recognizes no restraints?
Interesting how this story is buried at the bottom of the page with no reference in the menus above.....
Hmmmm.......
Yet most other news agencies have this clearly at the top......
And finally for the news commentator on the video, this is not "a victory for the Republicans".....
This is a victory for "We The People" faced with an unlawful President......
this story has been out all day on other networks, and msnbc was not putting it out for awhile..as i said above somewhere..they couldnt grasp the concept Obama has failings..the editing staff is biting nails right now..ed schultz is running his spin script for the teleprompter, but i have a feeling he is already here looking at comments trying to get ideas while chris mathews is slapping his leg with the tingles..or ed's helping him with that..either way...hahahahahahaha!!!!
It's called representation. Your folks on the left should try it.
It's difficult for me to believe that people this stoopid really exist! I'm talking to all you liberals out there that voted for obama. I thought that people this stoopid was only a myth.
Right on. More of his illegal executive orders to be shot down by the courts in the future.
Hey Brian why don't you tell the whole story. Harry Reed and company used the same tact-est in 08 or it might have been on 07. They played the game, closed the session and two days latter reopened.
The court ruled that the session was not officially closed. Obama new this and thought he new better and as a
result he got it right where the sun dose's shine.
Brian you are just another lacky for the adminstration, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Typical of the do nothing obstructionist Congress.
This was planned all along to stop any progress.
Having a few people sit in chairs, so as to say they are 'working' - such BS.
So clipping their toenails, picking their noses, reading the comics, filling out a crossword puzzle, sending twitter messages and downloading kiddie and gay porn on their laptops is considered to be 'in session' nowadays.
Pathetic excuses for lawmakers.