Author Topic: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!  (Read 2929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,564
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
… What's up with the SCOTUS? UNANIMOUS? :o



BREAKING: SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULES
OBAMA RECESS APPOINTMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB


by KEN KLUKOWSKI 26 Jun 2014, 7:48 AM PDT



Today the Supreme Court unanimously held that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he made several appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other agencies without Senate approval.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires that all high-level executive branch positions (called "principal officers") and all federal judges be nominated by the president, then must be confirmed by the Senate. The Recess Appointments Clause provides that if the Senate is in recess, the president can make appointments that can continue up to two years.

Not able to get several controversial nominees confirmed, Obama waited until the Senate adjourned for several days, then declared the Senate to be in recess, and unilaterally filled all those positions.

Obama made the shocking claim that he can declare the Senate in recess anytime there are not enough senators present on the Senate floor to do business. Under that theory, almost any night after dinner the president would be able to appoint Cabinet secretaries and even Supreme Court justices for up to two years without a Senate vote.

The majority opinion in NLRB v. Noel Canning was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal appointed by Bill Clinton, writing for five justices. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion for the four conservative justices that took a very different view of the Recess Appointments Clause that would restrict presidential power more significantly, but agreeing Obama's actions were unconstitutional.

READ ARTICLE HERE~~~>http://12160.info/forum/topic/show?id=2649739%3ATopic%3A1479508&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

… AND HERE~~~>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/26/Breaking-Supreme-Court-Unanimously-Rules-Obama-Recess-Appointments-are-Unconstitutional-Power-Grab


ALSO READ THE FOX REPORT~~~>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/26/supreme-court-limits-president-recess-appointment-power/
St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline OpenSight

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2014, 02:11:03 pm »
Yes, unanimous again, and quoting not only the Constitution, but the Federalist Papers as well...


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12–1281
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER
v. NOEL CANNING, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2014]
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
=========================================================
II


Before turning to the specific questions presented, we shall mention two background considerations that we find relevant to all three. First, the Recess Appointments Clause sets forth a subsidiary, not a primary, method for appointing officers of the United States. The immediately preceding Clause—Article II, Section 2, Clause 2— provides the primary method of appointment. It says that

the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States” (emphasis added).

The Federalist Papers make clear that the Founders intended this method of appointment, requiring Senate approval, to be the norm (at least for principal officers). Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Constitution vests the power of nomination in the President alone because “one man of discernment is better fitted to analise and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal, or perhaps even of superior discernment.” The Federalist No. 76, p. 510 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
At the same time, the need to secure Senate approval provides “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.” Id., at 513. Hamilton further explained that the
“ordinary power of appointment is confided to the President and Senate jointly, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers; and as vacancies might happen in their recess, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorise the President singly to make temporary appointments.” Id., No. 67, at 455.
Thus the Recess Appointments Clause reflects the tension between, on the one hand, the President’s continuous need for “the assistance of subordinates,” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 117 (1926), and, on the other, the
Senate’s practice, particularly during the Republic’s early
years, of meeting for a single brief session each year, see Art. I, §4, cl. 2; Amdt. 20, §2 (requiring the Senate to “assemble” only “once in every year”); 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1551, p. 410 (1833) (it would be “burthensome to the senate, and expensive to the public” to require the Senate to be “perpetually in session”). We seek to interpret the Clause as granting the President the power to make appointments during a recess but not offering the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/
Reality is real, existence exists.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2014, 03:08:21 pm »
Holly.
       Will this fly :-\
After all that come down during this freaks presidency this is the best SCOTUS can come up with.
                            At least it's a step in the right direction.

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,564
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2014, 03:18:48 pm »


Chris: … I believe these so-called appointments (as well as the bogus free-speech zones at clinics)
are SO flagrantly un-constitutional that even the far-left judges feel they have no recourse but to
vote accordingly … or be laughed off the bench! Obomba is taking-it-to-the-limit … seeing just how
far he can move toward dictatorship … before SOMEONE will step up to the plate and say NO MAS, SEÑOR!

St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2014, 08:47:52 pm »

Chris: … I believe these so-called appointments (as well as the bogus free-speech zones at clinics)
are SO flagrantly un-constitutional that even the far-left judges feel they have no recourse but to
vote accordingly … or be laughed off the bench! Obomba is taking-it-to-the-limit … seeing just how
far he can move toward dictatorship … before SOMEONE will step up to the plate and say NO MAS, SEÑOR!
             Hi Holly, I hope so...
Scotus had no choice did they..Oby will act as if this was a necessary move, he will probably tell the people "if our forefathers were alive today they would agree, the constitution must be altered to accommodate the changing times", he will give it a chin out certainty SCOTUS will understand the logic. (Ya know, who the muck do the supreme court think they are to question me and my bosses)..
                           Or his controllers will order  another FF and this will issue will be put on hold..
                     Sorry, but- I am a cynic, lost my belief in our illustrious governing body long ago.
                              Yes Holly,  sincerely do hope this will be a first step!

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2014, 06:37:46 am »
NOTICE THEY ROLLED OUT A COUPLE UNANIMOUS VOTES to reel the people back in, after their disgusting 5-4 votes recently that should have never happened, but for a compromised court!

I believe the highest court in the land may have realized nobody trusts them anymore to do their real job - PROTECT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION. Therefore, they are trying to appear unified on some cases to woo us back. You know, like throw the dog a bone?   ::) If they don't return to being professional and showing they are honoring the oath they took when they became a justice, they will continue to lose the respect of the people and will be rendered nothing but another kangaroo court!

Who currently sits on the Supreme Court is an embarassment! They don't deserve to sit for life because they have violated their oath of office (and we are talking both Conservatives and the Democrats over decades, but more noticeably more recently as they gatekeep for the globalists)! Shameful!

SCOTUS is going to have to come out with back to back and multiple REAL RULINGS to earn the trust of the public back! We are talking the entire Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. INTERNATIONAL LAW is not America, and all of you proponents on the court are a joke and you have defiled the seat that you hold.


I never thought I would ever see the day the US government (all branches and affiliate agenices) would act like brats, con men, gatekeepers for the globalists and kindergarten students while defiling their very reason for being there. Absolutely disgusting!

I keep saying: THROW THEM ALL OUT AND START OVER. Treason in any part of government can not be allowed OR YOU LOSE YOUR COUNTRY. WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE FIGURE THIS OUT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
 

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,564
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2014, 07:10:00 am »

… two more huge cases to be decided on
Monday … here's Libtard HuffPost's
take on what it all means:

Is this another "are Corporations persons" question?



Supreme Court Poised To Rule On Obamacare Birth Control Mandate

 AP  | By MARK SHERMAN
Posted: 06/28/2014 10:38 am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice.

The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer.

The cases involve birth control coverage under President Barack Obama's health law and fees paid to labor unions representing government employees by workers who object to being affiliated with a union.

Two years after Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election, the justices are considering a sliver of the law.

Employers must cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans.

Dozens of companies, including the Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives.

The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those that Hobby Lobby and furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvania, say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women's health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions.

Quote
Prominent Washington lawyer Paul Smith said another important question is how the decision would apply to "laws that protect people from discrimination, particularly LGBT people."

ARTICLE HERE~~~>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/28/obamacare-hobby-lobby_n_5539661.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Clegacy%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D494925
St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2014, 09:04:46 am »
Jackson Holly, You can bet that one will not be a unanimous vote! The libtard Obamabots will show their globalist bought off colors yet again, and the repubs will do nothing because they are hoping to win the next election! ::)


Neither party has any respect for human life. They treat us all like animals to be herded and controlled. The libs believe in abortion (and continue the Repub wars while they are in office), and the repubs believe in sending your kids to endless and NEEDLESS WARS for empire, but rarely go themselves or send their kids to these wars. So NEITHER has any respect for HUMANS, yet they promote global justice and human rights? Hypocrisy and insanity rules with these people. They all belong behind bars! WHAT A JOKE!
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
Re: UNANIMOUS DECISION: SCOTUS RULES OBAMA "RECESS" APPTS. ILLEGAL!
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2014, 12:13:33 pm »
My Aunt Nellie Sullivan,,(may she RIP), allways said, "if the supreme court is sold out- so is America".