Surprise - White house disagrees with NRLB ruling

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Jan 26, 2013
White House rejects ruling on NLRB recess appointments

By Rachel Rose Hartman, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Fri, Jan 25, 2013...

The White House on Friday expressed strong disagreement with a court ruling that the president's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution.

"The decision is novel and unprecedented," White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Friday's briefing. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."

He added: "We respectfully but strongly disagree with this decision."

Carney also noted that the White House believes the ruling, issued by a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, "does not apply to Richard Cordray," for whom the president used a recess appointment to install as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. "It’s one court, one case, one company," Carney said of the ruling's application.

Carney would not comment on a potential appeal or the next steps being examined by the administration, and referred reporters to the Justice Department for further details.

The panel ruled on Friday that three recess appointments to the NLRB made in January 2012 were unconstitutional because the Senate technically wasn't in recess. Cordray's nomination, which is unrelated to the NLRB, was made during the same time frame.

Republicans cheered the ruling on Friday and called for the NLRB to cease action immediately and have its work retroactively invalidated. They also offered strong criticism of President Barack Obama.

“The president, who taught constitutional law, should’ve known better,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement.“As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama’s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses. Today, we know that it is American workers who are going to pay the price for the administration’s arrogant miscalculation.”

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement called the ruling a "victory for accountability in government."

He added: "The Obama administration has consistently used the NLRB to impose regulations that hurt our economy by fostering uncertainty in the workplace, and telling businesses where they can and cannot create jobs. Instead of operating under a shroud of controversy, the NLRB should meet the highest standards of transparency, starting with having its members approved by the people’s representatives."

Slewsie, pay close attention to this quote I grabbed out of the article:

"The panel ruled on Friday that three recess appointments to the NLRB made in January 2012 were unconstitutional because the Senate technically wasn't in recess. Cordray's nomination, which is unrelated to the NLRB, was made during the same time frame."

I know your reading comprehension is limited, I will do my best to explain it to you. The Senate technically was not in recess, so the President could not make "recess" appointments. I even typed really slowly for you. Good luck.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#2 Jan 26, 2013
Sure, type it really slow, it doesn't change the fact your party's playing juvenile games, kinda like you do... If you were a man, it was LONG AGO ! LMAOROTFU~!
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Jan 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
White House rejects ruling on NLRB recess appointments
By Rachel Rose Hartman, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Fri, Jan 25, 2013...
The White House on Friday expressed strong disagreement with a court ruling that the president's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution.
"The decision is novel and unprecedented," White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Friday's briefing. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."
He added: "We respectfully but strongly disagree with this decision."
Carney also noted that the White House believes the ruling, issued by a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, "does not apply to Richard Cordray," for whom the president used a recess appointment to install as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. "It’s one court, one case, one company," Carney said of the ruling's application.
Carney would not comment on a potential appeal or the next steps being examined by the administration, and referred reporters to the Justice Department for further details.
The panel ruled on Friday that three recess appointments to the NLRB made in January 2012 were unconstitutional because the Senate technically wasn't in recess. Cordray's nomination, which is unrelated to the NLRB, was made during the same time frame.
Republicans cheered the ruling on Friday and called for the NLRB to cease action immediately and have its work retroactively invalidated. They also offered strong criticism of President Barack Obama.
“The president, who taught constitutional law, should’ve known better,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement.“As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama’s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses. Today, we know that it is American workers who are going to pay the price for the administration’s arrogant miscalculation.”
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement called the ruling a "victory for accountability in government."
He added: "The Obama administration has consistently used the NLRB to impose regulations that hurt our economy by fostering uncertainty in the workplace, and telling businesses where they can and cannot create jobs. Instead of operating under a shroud of controversy, the NLRB should meet the highest standards of transparency, starting with having its members approved by the people’s representatives."
Slewsie, pay close attention to this quote I grabbed out of the article:
"The panel ruled on Friday that three recess appointments to the NLRB made in January 2012 were unconstitutional because the Senate technically wasn't in recess. Cordray's nomination, which is unrelated to the NLRB, was made during the same time frame."
I know your reading comprehension is limited, I will do my best to explain it to you. The Senate technically was not in recess, so the President could not make "recess" appointments. I even typed really slowly for you. Good luck.
OMG! OMG! Barry's man-boy Carney says they disagree with the Court decision. Knock me over with a feather. Barry told Carney to get back to polishing his shoes when he was done expressing Barry's displeasure.

“We have 545 traitors.”

Since: May 11

Parts Unknown

#6 Jan 26, 2013
This should really be handled by Obamas puppet court.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#7 Jan 26, 2013
The puppet court, put together by Bushwhacker ??? Sure funny, this court handed shrub the reins and the wagon flipped over... Gotta burn, they agreed with healthcare, right wing nut ???
Amused Slew

Minneapolis, MN

#8 Jan 26, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
The puppet court, put together by Bushwhacker ??? Sure funny, this court handed shrub the reins and the wagon flipped over... Gotta burn, they agreed with healthcare, right wing nut ???
Everyone! Everyone! Seattle Slew, my gay husband,is seeing a doctor next week to have his meds adjusted. Until then you might have trouble understanding the babbling that comes out of his ignorant mouth. Forgive him.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#11 Jan 26, 2013
I'm as gay, as you are a man... Not at all.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Jan 27, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Sure, type it really slow, it doesn't change the fact your party's playing juvenile games, kinda like you do... If you were a man, it was LONG AGO ! LMAOROTFU~!
Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#13 Jan 28, 2013
REWRITING REALITY, again !!???

non-starter wrote: I found it, you just won't publish that you got it off Yahoo or Wiki answers ....

THEN the lies began, LMAOROTFU~!

non-starter wrote: No, I guessed, because you weren't forthcoming with your source

OR MY NEW FAVORITE-

non-starter wrote: I found similar postings on Yahoo answers and Wiki answers

You posted to the urban dictionary to support your position...It's called tampering and you're clearly a duplicitous/dishonest POS... Have a nice lie... Oh sorry, I surely meant life.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#14 Jan 28, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
REWRITING REALITY, again !!???
non-starter wrote: I found it, you just won't publish that you got it off Yahoo or Wiki answers ....
THEN the lies began, LMAOROTFU~!
non-starter wrote: No, I guessed, because you weren't forthcoming with your source
OR MY NEW FAVORITE-
non-starter wrote: I found similar postings on Yahoo answers and Wiki answers
You posted to the urban dictionary to support your position...It's called tampering and you're clearly a duplicitous/dishonest POS... Have a nice lie... Oh sorry, I surely meant life.
Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#15 Jan 28, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...
Another example of Barack Hussein Obama wanting rules and laws applied to everyone but himself.

That is sort of the Democrat mantra these days, isn't it?
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#17 Jan 28, 2013
Gee, looks like everyone else had different "rules" ???

Poor TrasyLiar, a day late and a man short...
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Jan 28, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Gee, looks like everyone else had different "rules" ???
Poor TrasyLiar, a day late and a man short...
From your own posted source:

On at least three occasions, the Senate has used
procedural tools to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days for the
stated purpose of preventing such appointments: the 2007 Thanksgiving holiday period,10
the period between the first and second sessions of the 110th Congress,11 and the 2008
Presidents Day holiday period.12 In each of these cases, the Senate met in pro forma
sessions (during which no business was to be conducted) every three or four days over the
course of what otherwise would have been a longer Senate recess. The President made
no recess appointments during these periods.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#19 Jan 28, 2013
And another from your posted source:

Although President Theodore Roosevelt once made recess appointments during an
intersession recess of less than one day, the shortest recess during which appointments
have been made during the past 20 years was 9 days. Appointments made during short
recesses (less than 30 days) have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve
a political cost for the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances
when Senators perceived that the President was using the recess appointment process to
circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who was opposed in the Senate.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#20 Jan 28, 2013
This whole ruling was made because the appointments “took place when the Senate was in an “intra-session” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess.” Good grief. This was a charade by the Republicans.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#21 Jan 28, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
This whole ruling was made because the appointments “took place when the Senate was in an “intra-session” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess.” Good grief. This was a charade by the Republicans.
From your own posted source:

On at least three occasions, the Senate has used
procedural tools to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days for the
stated purpose of preventing such appointments: the 2007 Thanksgiving holiday period,10
the period between the first and second sessions of the 110th Congress,11 and the 2008
Presidents Day holiday period.12 In each of these cases, the Senate met in pro forma
sessions (during which no business was to be conducted) every three or four days over the
course of what otherwise would have been a longer Senate recess. The President made
no recess appointments during these periods.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23 Jan 28, 2013
Obama is far from alone in relying on recess appointments to conduct administration business absent Senate cooperation.

As president, Mr. Bush made 171 recess appointments during his eight years in the White House. President Clinton made 139. Theodore Roosevelt made 160 such appointments — 193, according to some accounts — in a single day in 1903.

The White House is expected to appeal Friday’s ruling, which could reach the US Supreme Court.

The partisan battle over “recess appointments” took a new turn Friday when a federal appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he made such appointments to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

In essence, said the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Senate remained formally in session during the Christmas and New Year's holidays early in 2012, when Mr. Obama appointed three members to the NLRB.

The Senate is supposed to vote on the president's appointments. But at times both Democrat and Republican presidents have tried to get around that requirement by making appointments during a Senate recess. In response, both parties have used a tactic in which the Senate is gaveled into and out of “pro forma” sessions every few days during a break. That's what was going on early last year.

The issue — and this particular case — are fraught with partisan politics.

The three judges ruling unanimously Friday are Republican appointees.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#24 Jan 28, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Obama is far from alone in relying on recess appointments to conduct administration business absent Senate cooperation.
As president, Mr. Bush made 171 recess appointments during his eight years in the White House. President Clinton made 139. Theodore Roosevelt made 160 such appointments — 193, according to some accounts — in a single day in 1903.
The White House is expected to appeal Friday’s ruling, which could reach the US Supreme Court.
The partisan battle over “recess appointments” took a new turn Friday when a federal appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he made such appointments to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In essence, said the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Senate remained formally in session during the Christmas and New Year's holidays early in 2012, when Mr. Obama appointed three members to the NLRB.
The Senate is supposed to vote on the president's appointments. But at times both Democrat and Republican presidents have tried to get around that requirement by making appointments during a Senate recess. In response, both parties have used a tactic in which the Senate is gaveled into and out of “pro forma” sessions every few days during a break. That's what was going on early last year.
The issue — and this particular case — are fraught with partisan politics.
The three judges ruling unanimously Friday are Republican appointees.
Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

Those appointments were recess appointments, Obama's were not. Too bad your reading comprehension is so poor.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#25 Jan 28, 2013
Sure, type it really slow, it doesn't change the fact your party's playing juvenile games, kinda like you do... If you were a man, it was LONG AGO ! LMAOROTFU~!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#26 Jan 28, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Sure, type it really slow, it doesn't change the fact your party's playing juvenile games, kinda like you do... If you were a man, it was LONG AGO ! LMAOROTFU~!
And another from your posted source:

Although President Theodore Roosevelt once made recess appointments during an
intersession recess of less than one day, the shortest recess during which appointments
have been made during the past 20 years was 9 days. Appointments made during short
recesses (less than 30 days) have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve
a political cost for the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances
when Senators perceived that the President was using the recess appointment process to
circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who was opposed in the Senate.

By the way, those juvenile games wouldn't be possible if Reid, Obama, and Clinton hadn't done it first in 2007 and 2008. Look it up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
N. Korea calls Obama a 'monkey' 10 hr All Fours 6
Veteran Freed From MSP VA Dental Dept Phone Abu... 19 hr American_Sons 21
CNN at the Dead Cops Funeral Fri Icantbreathe 5
America: It's Black against White Fri Kim Jong Obama 1
Thanks Obama for low gas pricex Fri Sunshine 12
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Fri LIbEralS 292
Mall of America Protest Dec 25 Go Blue Forever 34
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:09 am PST

Bleacher Report 9:09AM
Expect Packers to Continue Lambeau Dominance vs. Lions
NBC Sports11:06 AM
Mike McCarthy: No concerns about Aaron Rodgers
NBC Sports12:05 PM
Packers' Rodgers listed as probable for Lions game - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 9:07 PM
Vikings stadium builders work on career highlight - NBC Sports
ESPN 7:39 PM
On the house: Bar offers free tab if Lions win