And the Court Says…


Court says Obama recess appointments invalid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday invalidated President Barack Obama’s “recess” appointments to a labor board last year, ruling that the move was unconstitutional and dealing a blow to Obama’s strategy of bypassing Senate Republicans.

The three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 were made while the Senate was out of town but potentially available to act on them.

“Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” the panel said.

RACISTS!! RacistsracistsRACISTS!!!!!!

7 Responses to “And the Court Says…”

  1. Mr. Bingley says:

    More importantly the ruling was unanimous.

  2. Skyler says:

    That took a while. I wondered when we were going to get a ruling on that. I doubt it will go any higher.

  3. David Crawford says:

    The best feature about the ruling is that any NLRB decisions made by those appointees are now invalid. South Carolina and Boeing are doing the happy dance.

  4. Kathy Kinsley says:

    Bravo for the court.

    Want to take bets as to whether he takes it to the Supremes?

  5. Kathy Kinsley says:

    @ Skyler – and I REALLY hope you are right. But I’m betting on the other side.

  6. Outspoken Red says:

    Are you kidding? They will DEFINITELY take it to the Supreme Court. Dictator Obama does not take “No” lightly.

  7. Syd B. says:

    Tom Griffith, one of the judges, happens to be a Mormon and loves and reveres the Constitution. He was the BYU Stake President And a great man with a solid Constitutional legal mind. I can hear his influence, if not his actual voice, in the following statements from the ruling:

    “Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.

    In their ruling the judges said their duty is not to speed up the workings of government, but to hold to constitutional principles.
    “If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands,” the judges wrote.

Image | WordPress Themes