Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

June 26, 2014 - 8:45 am

Republicans on the Hill cheered the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that found President Obama’s January 2012 appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, while the top Democrat in the Senate maintained that the White House was in the right.

Obama branded them “recess appointments,” but the Senate was actually in pro-forma session at the time.

In September of that year, 41 GOP senators filed an amicus brief in support of the case brought against the presidential appointments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the appointments of Sharon Block and Richard Griffin were unconstitutional in February 2013.

“The unanimous Supreme Court decision today is a powerful rebuke to the Obama administration and a reminder to others that the Constitution gives the Senate powers the executive branch cannot usurp,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “Our founders wanted a president, not a king, and our Constitution is written to protect against precisely the kind of overreach this president demonstrated with his so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said “all Americans should be grateful for the Court’s rebuke of the administration—and the Democratic Majority in the Senate should be embarrassed by its failure, yet again, to stand up to the President and to defend the Senate’s uniquely important role under our Constitution.”

“I was proud to lead the effort to defend the Senate against the president’s unprecedented power grab,” McConnell added.

The challenge to the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned business in Washington state that fought the NLRB’s determination it must enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.

“This administration has a tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard those it doesn’t. In this case, that disturbing and dangerous tendency extended to the Constitution itself,” McConnell said. “Whether it’s recess appointments or Obamacare, this troubling approach does serious damage to the rule of law, and the Court’s decision is a clear rebuke of the administration’s behavior.”

“This administration’s efforts to turn the NLRB into a pro-union, anti-business clearinghouse has made it that much harder for our economy to turn the corner and more difficult for folks to get back to work,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

“For too long, our president has operated by fiat, bypassing Congress and overriding the will of the American people,” added Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “Today’s ruling sends a clear message against President Obama’s power grabs and restores more constitutionally-required accountability for all nominations going forward.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the ruling just underscored how important it was for him to drop the nuclear option last fall and lower the cloture threshold for approving Obama’s judicial nominees.

“Since President Obama took office, Senate Republicans have done everything possible to deny qualified nominees from receiving a fair up-or-down vote. President Obama did the right thing when he made these appointments on behalf of American workers. The National Labor Relations Board had ceased to function due to Senate Republican obstruction of these three qualified nominees, threatening the livelihood and safety of working men and women throughout the country,” Reid said in a statement.

“More than anything, today’s Supreme Court ruling underscores the importance of the rules reform Senate Democrats enacted last November,” Reid continued. “Without that reform and with today’s ruling, a small but vocal minority would have more power than ever to block qualified nominees from getting a simple up-or-down vote on the floor. Since the November reform the Senate has been confirming qualified nominees at a steady pace and today’s ruling will have no effect on our ability to continue ensuring that qualified nominees receive an up-or-down vote.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.
Top Rated Comments   
You live that Harry, and when the Republicans take control in November, and they leave YOUR rule in place, you will be on every show that will have you saying how they need to change this back.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
We're dealing with a malignant narcissist.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Our founders wanted a president, not a king."

But Obama doesn't want to be king. To think so is to vastly misjudge him and seriously underestimate his ambitions. He wants to be Pharoah. We are not dealing with just a garden variety power mad egomaniac here.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Without the Law, as these slime want things to be, Reid and many others will soon be cold meat.
They will drown in their own putrid agenda.
It will be done.
-GBA-
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes and they made over 1,000 formal rulings during that short span. At what cost to the taxpayers?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Every one of which can now be challenged in court by those affected.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"... how important it was for him to drop the nuclear option last fall and lower the cloture threshold for approving Obama’s judicial nominees."

See, we gotta pack the courts with our guys.

Hey, idiot, what part of "unanimous decision" did you not understand? What part of, "You are totally wrong.", did you not understand? Even Obama's hand-picked Justices voted against. IOW, even the Liberals said it was wrong. This was the 13th time Obama's actions have been slammed like this by the SC. 9-0! Not just no, but hell no!
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
So the SCOTUS unanimously ruled that Obama's 'recess appointments' are unconstitutional. And pragmatically, that accomplishes what? What consequence will arise for Obama if he ignores that SCOTUS ruling?

Nothing.

As far as Obama is concerned, SCOTUS rulings unfavorable to his actions are meaningless.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Pres. Andrew Jackson
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Meanwhile, this all happened 2 years ago. So, the "unlawful" appointments have been running afoul of the Constitution all this time and will continue to wreak havoc until forcibly removed. Catch me if you can..........
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Read Scalia's concurring opinion. It is the Dems that should be cheering.

The Supreme Court majority rejected the Court of Appeals' ruling and has allowed recess appointments for vacancies that happen anytime, not just during a recess, and has defined a "recess" to be any break in the legislative session, not just the period between legislative sessions (although 3 days is too short).

In sum, Obama stretched the rule as far as it could be stretched. The Court said he went too far this time but approved a rule that gave him much more power than the Framers had intended.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, you are wrong. The problem is, a corrupt Senate could say they are not ever in recess, to forever block recess appointments. So the Justices said, let's look at history for guidance. Let's just look at whether they are actually, effectively in recess or not? IOW, I cannot define recess, but I know it when I see it.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, that's obvious: since they can't force through recess appointments, they have to have some other way of making "advice and consent" into a joke.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
You live that Harry, and when the Republicans take control in November, and they leave YOUR rule in place, you will be on every show that will have you saying how they need to change this back.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama already is the first king of the United States since Garfield Goose.

What he wants, is to be leader of the One World Government.


And as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “ … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth ….”

If you have any doubt about this, some highlight events that took place during the UN’s 2010 Cancun, Mexico, climate conference should be illuminating. After developing countries demanded that rich ones provide many billions of dollars to them for damage to the climate, U.S. and European representatives expressed willingness to provide their “fair share,” pledging $10 billion per year from 2010 to 2012. This offer was rejected as an insufficient insult, representatives of several undeveloped countries walked out of the meetings and angry riots broke out in the streets.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then came to the rescue, offering to up the ante with a $100 billion annual contribution from the United States and our more prosperous friends to the “poorest and most vulnerable [nations] among us” by 2020. Where it would actually come from no one knew, including Hillary and her boss. (Any guesses?)

Yet judging from the tumultuous standing ovation following a speech from Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, one might have imagined that he was going to provide all that money. But this was not so. Instead he had aroused general agreement in the audience regarding where to lay the blame for the world’s social, economic and climate problems: “Our revolution seeks to help all people…Socialism, is the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet; capitalism is the road to hell.… Let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.”

Viewed from an even larger perspective, the global warming rubric has provided an ideal platform to accomplish exactly what Chavez has in mind…to enable the UN to advance large transformational visions of socialism, wealth redistribution, and ultimately, global governance.

If this sounds a bit too conspiratorial, consider the words spoken by former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev recognizing the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives, stating in 1996: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” This may well have seemed like the last hope for that agenda following the U.S.S.R.’s economic and political collapse in 1991.

Also think about words of a speech delivered by then-President Jacques Chirac of France supporting a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand, reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, resource-sharing through co-ownership, and encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth.

So, are you ready? Welcome to the climate alarm-founded ant farm they have in mind!

Excerpted from “The U.N.’s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson,” as published in Forbes Online, January 22, 2013;
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Those nasty Republicans using cheap tricks like pro-forma sessions to prevent the President from doing the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! Who came up with this dastardly "pro-forma" practice anyway? They should be stripped in the town square, tarred and...

oh...

never mind.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “Despite ‘Powerful Rebuke’ from Supreme Court, Reid Says Ruling Shows Need for Nuclear Option”