So they’ve taken it upon themselves to define a “recess” as lasting at least 10 days, effectively boxing in Obama’s ability to make needed appointments in the face of Republican obstruction.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president’s power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama.
The high court’s first-ever case involving the Constitution’s recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution’s provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess.
Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted.
Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.
The justices rejected that argument Wednesday.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.
The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate’s Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees.
But the ruling’s impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate’s ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.
I remember reading an interview with a Republican insider who said, “Why didn’t Obama just make recess appointments? That’s what we all expected him to do.” Yeah, until they decided not to let him.
Thankfully the Repubs and Court had a few balls. Too bad not enough to impeach
This is a good decision. A unanimous decision. If you believe that a president, any president, has dictatorial powers then you probably won’t like this decision. The time has come to shrink the “imperial presidency” that has been adding power to itself since Richard Nixon said that “If the President does it it’s legal.” Obama has prosecuted more people for being spies then all of the other presidents combined. Three times as many. He has asked for and obtained legal authorization to execute American citizens without due process of law. He has, by executive order, prevented entire sections of the ACA to be enforced. And on and on. Enough is enough.
Hmmm… your unhappiness withe the decision makes YOU a political malcontent. Will you call the White House and ask them to mow you down as you believe that others should be?
david, perhaps you should read “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift. While it’s true that it’s challenging to write good satire, it’s equally true that satire is often misinterpreted by the unenlightened as an actual solution to some real problem. The last thing that Susie wants is for violence to be visited upon anybody. In real life she’s a very thoughtful, caring person. Which is not to say that from time to time I don’t disagree with her point of view.