Obama's executive action held unconstitutional

[J.K. Gregg]

[Professor]

[Mr.Bill]

In this case there was no business to be done in the Senate.. There were no Senators in Chambers.. Hell, there was probably no Senators in DC.. That's a recess. Seriously IMO it's pretty childish that we will now have to have the USSC to define what a 'recess' is. But that is the world we now live in. And both sides complain constantly that the courts now legislate everything? Well, the courts have to.. The government can't agree on sh1t.

And again if we look at the whole ruling from these 3 Judges they're saying the recess process/nominations have been violated by every president for the last 150 years.

But now, with THIS president it's a problem?

[John Galt]

senate can't go into recess without the house's okay

again, the major issue is that this president went and decided what the senate's recess was, a clear violation of the separation of enumerated powers

[Mr.Bill]

I was addressing the 'intent' Prof brought up.

The Senates Republicans 'AND big business intent' was obvious. they don't like unions and/or the labor board. And they mean to shut it down..

So if if we look pass the 'letter of the law' and look to intent, the Senate Republicans aren't squeaky clean here either.

And I mentioned this before, I'll say it again.. Republicans better get on the knees right now and pray as hard as they can that the USSC doesn't uphold this decision.. Because if they don't and they rule in favor of the WH, THIS president will run roughshod over them with his nominations. he will make them pay for a loooong time.

[J.K. Gregg]

I'm sure it's a wet dream of the GOP to shut down the labor board, but in their defense (and I don't come to the GOP's defense often), they said they wouldn't vote for a appointee until structural changes were made. And in a divided government, you only have a few options: compromise or play chicken.

[Mr.Bill]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think the 'structural' changes they want are to the new Consumer Financial Protection Affairs agency, not the labor board..

The labor board has been around forever. This suit was actually brought by a bottling company who didn't like a decision the labor board ruled on concerning their fight with their union.. So they sued hoping to nullify the pro-union ruling.. Then the GOP jumped onboard the suit because the ruling favored a union, and because Obama's appointment to the new consumer financial agency was done under the same circumstances as the labor board appointment.. And they are against the Consumer Agency.. Of course they'd also like to shut down the labor board too.

That's the way I understand it..

[J.K. Gregg]

You're right Bill. I got the government bodies mixed up.

[The Dude]

^^ yes.

Since the 2010 decision that required 3 members to be on the NLRB to make a quorum instead of 2, the GOP has taken the position that they won't allow anyone on the board because it means the board can't function anymore. They aren't asking for changes, they just want it to cease be able to do anything.

I think this is a violation of the separation of powers. They're determining how to execute the law they've passed.

edit: And no, Galt never answered my question. He gave a general answer to a specific question which is why I asked again and he continues to ignore it since it destroys his argument.

[Precocity]

I suspect this is going to the Supreme Court and they are going to have their hands full on this one. Either way they rule on it, it's setting a very dangerous precedent.