Bloomberg News: President’s Recess-Appointment Power Cut by High Court

[visionary]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-26/president-s-recess-appointment-power-cut-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

President’s Recess-Appointment Power Cut by High Court

 

The U.S. Supreme Court curbed the president’s power to make temporary appointments without Senate approval, backing congressional Republicans and dealing a blow to President Barack Obama.

 

The justices ruled unanimously that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. Four Republican-appointed justices would have gone further in limiting the appointment power.

 

The case was the court’s first look at a constitutional provision that lets the president make temporary appointments to high-level posts during Senate recesses. The decision leaves the Senate with broad power to thwart the president’s nominations, letting lawmakers all but nullify the recess-appointment power by holding brief, “pro forma” sessions every few days.

 

“We must give great weight to the Senate’s own determination of when it is and when it is not in session,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have ruled on broader grounds. They said the recess-appointment power applies only after a year-long congressional session ends and before the next one begins, not during breaks within a session.

 

Writing for the group, Scalia also said valid appointments could be made only when the vacancy itself occurred while the Senate was adjourned.

Another unanimous ruling.  

[The Evil Genius]

I'm sure this ruling makes sense..but I find this troubling,

 

The decision leaves the Senate with broad power to thwart the president’s nominations, letting lawmakers all but nullify the recess-appointment power by holding brief, “pro forma” sessions every few days.

[deejaydana]

I'm sure this ruling makes sense..but I find this troubling,

what part of it is troubling specifically? I haven't read anything yet about the language returned by the Supremes...

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think this had to happen.  The previous way of doing business just gave too much latitude for both parties to abuse IMO.  

[PeterMP]

It seems reasonable to me.  I don't particularly like what the Senate did, but you also don't want Presidents running around saying, I'm declaring X, Y, and Z have to happen for the Senate to REALLY be in session and since those things aren't happening, I'm making these appointments.

[The Evil Genius]

what part of it is troubling specifically? I haven't read anything yet about the language returned by the Supremes...

 

Nothing that the SC said.

 

That the Senate can thwart recess appointment nominations by holding "brief sessions" every few days. It seems like a cop out for them to avoid giving the President the power to make recess appoints (especially if the President is having to make it because the Senate Republicans [or whoever is obstructing] refuses to allow a vote on the nominations in the first place).

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nothing that the SC said.

 

That the Senate can thwart recess appointment nominations by holding "brief sessions" every few days. It seems like a cop out for them to avoid giving the President the power to make recess appoints (especially if the President is having to make it because the Senate Republicans [or whoever is obstructing] refuses to allow a vote on the nominations in the first place).

 

As painful as the process is, I think (hope) that it eventually brings the process back to a bi-partisan way of doing business.   We are to divided and it gets worse every day.   If you have to compromise in order to get things done, that's better IMO.

[Larry]

I said, when this came up, that my ruling would have been:

The constitution gives Congress the power to write it's own rules. Therefore, Congress is in recess when Congress says it's in recess.

[The Evil Genius]

As painful as the process is, I think (hope) that it eventually brings the process back to a bi-partisan way of doing business.   We are to divided and it gets worse every day.   If you have to compromise in order to get things done, that's better IMO.

 

I would say it's hard to compromise when one party refuses to even allow a vote on a nomination. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would say it's hard to compromise when one party refuses to even allow a vote on a nomination. 

 

 

Yes, but the other side of that is that the Senate doesn't bring bills to the floor or one side is excluded from discussions or whatever the case.  This ruling may force each side to adopt more changes towards cooperation in lots of different areas in order to get appointees you want and that's a good thing I think.

 

It's a pain but you have to hang in and deal with it, regardless of circumstances and that is for both parties.

 

The alternative is too much power residing with the President and that's not good.

[twa]

I thought this amusing

 

SCOTUS Unanimously Strikes Down Obama’s Executive Overreach for the 12th Time Since January 2012

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1453

 

maybe he needs a better lawyer? 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I thought this amusing

 

SCOTUS Unanimously Strikes Down Obama’s Executive Overreach for the 12th Time Since January 2012

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1453

 

maybe he needs a better lawyer? 

 

Lois Lerner might be looking?

[autoidiodyssey]

I would say it's hard to compromise when one party refuses to even allow a vote on a nomination. 

 

Didn't the Senate change the rules to allow a 51-49 vote to confirm?

[Kilmer17]

I dont like this ruling one bit.

 

I dont like what Obama did to, imo, abuse his power.  But I do think the POTUS deserves to have that power.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm fine with this. We'll see the sides flip as usually if a Republican wins the White House and the Dems take the Hill. At some point the President will end up on TV with a list of nominations and just say "Look folks, we have people that your elected officials won't even vote on. So......things are going to suck for a while. Sorry".

 

The rules on the Hill need to change to speed up the whole process and not allow senseless blocking. That goes for everybody. Both sides. Jerks.

[Duckus]

On the surface, this ruling doesn't bother me.

 

I never really understood the point of recess appointments. What is the point of Senate confimration if a President can simply wait until they are out of session?

 

As for these appointments - what is different between what Obama has done with recess appoints and his predecssors? I saw a chart not ong ago which showed Obama has used recess appointments far less than every other recent president. In fact, Regan I think had 10x more. What about Obama's appointments have been more controversal?

[Wrong Direction]

Random observations from tweets earlier today.

 

1. This ruling didn't limit the president's powers, it clarified that he didn't have the power at all. 

 

2. According to Vox, this started during the Bush administration when D's wouldn't give votes on Bush's appointees. I knew one of them personally. He was as apolitical as they get, but got caught up in ugly Washington.

 

3. The politics are just more visceral than ever. Hopefully this will force more votes and more rational nominees.

[twa]

What about Obama's appointments have been more controversal?

 

The fact he did them while Congress was in session.....unprecedented I believe.

 

uncouth even 

[Larry]

Didn't the Senate change the rules to allow a 51-49 vote to confirm?

 

I think so, but only for some things.  (I think they specifically excluded SC justices.  Not sure what else.) 

[nonniey]

I would say it's hard to compromise when one party refuses to even allow a vote on a nomination. 

Forgetting something? This is academic unless and until a party in opposition to the President gets control of the Senate. Harry Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster,  remember?

[Predicto]

The fact he did them while Congress was in session.....unprecedented I believe.

 

uncouth even 

 

 

I think what was unprecedented was Congress suddenly pretending to be in session when it isn't, so that the President couldn't make recess appointments in the exact same manner as every single President since George Washington. 

 

Nevertheless, the ruling is correct.  As Larry pointed out, under separation of power, only Congress can decide when Congress is in session.  

 

The jockeying between the executive and the legislative goes on, as it always has.

[JMS]

I said, when this came up, that my ruling would have been:

The constitution gives Congress the power to write it's own rules. Therefore, Congress is in recess when Congress says it's in recess.

The supreme court agrees with you... I think rational thought disagrees with both of you. Luckly the supreme court's ruling doesn't matter. It doesn't change anything.

The Washington DC two step....

Nearly half way through Obama's second term and his political appointments cant get a hearing on the hill..

Obama takes two steps:

(1) When Congress is out of session, and still claiming to be in session by having somebody read a role call in an empty assemble building, Obama makes Recess oppoinments differenciating from when congress is in session and when they say they are in session.

(2) Realizing this strategy was not sufficient to take up the slack of the slow confirmation process and with lots of threats going back and forth between the GOP and Dems, the Dems move to confirm political appointments by a simple majority rather than a veto proof 60 votes..

The Dem's have a simple majority, so no more reoadblocks to their political appointments.

The supreme court addressed the former only when Congress says they are in session, not the latter.

[The Evil Genius]

I think what was unprecedented was Congress suddenly pretending to be in session when it isn't, so that the President couldn't make recess appointments in the exact same manner as every single President since George Washington. 

 

 

This x1000.

 

That was what I quoted back in post 2 and said I found troubling. Not sure why that's lost on people.

Forgetting something? This is academic unless and until a party in opposition to the President gets control of the Senate. Harry Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster,  remember?

 

This case was about appointments back in 2012. The Dems didn't nuke the Senate filibuster until late 2013.

[JMS]

Forgetting something? This is academic unless and until a party in opposition to the President gets control of the Senate. Harry Reid and the Democrats ended the filibuster,  remember?

Exactly....

What I can't figure out is why Harry Reid was allowing the fake congress in session role calls?

Weren't the dems in control when the senate was pretending to be in session to thwart the interum appointments?

[The Evil Genius]

Exactly....

What I can't figure out is why Harry Reid was allowing the fake congress in session role calls?

Weren't the dems in control when the senate was pretending to be in session to thwart the interum appointments?

This case was about appointments back in 2012. I believe the Dems didn't gain the nuclear option on appointments until late 2013. Prior to that, it only took 41 votes to filibuster any appointment.