The ruling was a blow to the administration and a victory for Mr. Obama’s Republican critics – and a handful of liberal ones – who had accused Mr. Obama of improperly claiming that he could make the appointments under his executive powers. The administration had argued that the president could decide that senators were really on a lengthy recess even though the Senate considered itself to be meeting in “pro forma” sessions.
But the court went beyond the narrow dispute over pro forma sessions and issued a far more sweeping ruling than expected. Legal specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment power for all future presidents when it has become increasingly difficult for presidents to win Senate confirmation for their nominees. In recent years, senators have more frequently balked at consenting to executive appointments. President George W. Bush made about 170 such appointments, including John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations and two appeals court judges, William H. Pryor Jr. and Charles W. Pickering Sr.
“If this opinion stands, I think it will fundamentally alter the balance between the Senate and the president by limiting the president’s ability to keep offices filled,” said John P. Elwood, who handled recess appointment issues for the Justice Department during the Bush administration. “This is certainly a red-letter day in presidential appointment power.”
Think Obama has a hard enough time appointing people now? Imagine how hard it’ll be if the ruling stands. FWIW, it cuts back a loophole in the current law that allows the president to appoint politicians without Senate approval, by scaling back the definition of the word “recess” in regards to executive power.
Appeals court rules against individual mandate: The health care law is going to need a up-and-down Supreme Court take. Let’s face it, guys. EDIT: Breaking News notes that the law can still stand without the mandate.
“Incompatible with the concept of human dignity”: So said Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 Supreme Court majority that ruled California’s state prison system is so overcrowded that they say it violates constitutional rights (the level of health services available to inmates who sorely need them has been a relevant issue of late). As such, the ruling may force the state to release nearly 40,000 prisoners. “The release of prisoners in large numbers … is a matter of undoubted, grave concern, yet so too is the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations,” said Kennedy. source
It is decidedly unjust and unreasonable to expect California’s gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second-class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory comes to its final conclusion.Chad Griffin, chairman of The American Foundation For Civil Rights • Speaking on the rejected plea to lift the stay on the Proposition 8 ruling. The proposition, which was approved by voters in the 2008 election, was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Vaughn Walker last year, but a stay was put on his ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This was broadly thought to be a delay on the resumption of gay marriage in the state so that if/when a higher court examined the issue, the marriages wouldn’t again have to be halted if Walker’s verdict was overturned. Gay rights advocates are understandably unhappy, as the stay could conceivably last a year, and if civil rights are infringed, we suspect that’s not the expedient remedy most people would feel entitled to. source (via • follow)
Almost everyone agrees that the constitutionality of the act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible.Senior US District Judge Roger Vinson • In offering a deal to the Obama administration – he’ll put a stay on his health-care decision – but only if he appeals it, possibly directly to the Supreme Court. Vinson’s decision is notable in that he said the entire law was unconstitutional in his decision, which was the result of a 26-state class-action lawsuit. So, how do you guys think that the Supreme Court will decide? source (via • follow)
The Senate knows the rule and should follow the rule and they should be cognizant of the rule. Nobody ought to be surprised by the rule. It is in the Constitution, and you have all been lectured and we have as well about reading the Constitution.House Majority Whip (for the next month or so) Steny Hoyer • Scolding Senate Democrats for doing something really moronic. See, any revenue-raising bill has to originate in the House. Usually, the Senate gets around this by using a discarded, recombobulated House bill as a shell. But they didn’t do that this time with the food-safety bill they just passed, because they’re inept and want to let the GOP walk all over them like they’ve been doing the last two years. Heckuva job. (thanks fuckyeahcoolquotes) source (via • follow)
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
