1 the president is a fly covered scoamf

2

Federal Appeals Court sends Obama a big “First Union”

This should screw-up every meeting, every decision that has been made for about the last year (i.e. total chaos).

3 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

4 Nikki Haley, Boeing, and the state of South Carolina should like this one.

5 That sound from Boeing is not jet engines.  Its lawyers revving up their word processors.

6 But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

7 I just love news like this when the weather is restrictive here in Mexifornia for pool beers..

8 Wait....Barky is a constitutional expert.....yes?

WTF is a Court doing disagreeing with an expert on these matters?

9 The Constitution is obviously racist. Obama should just declare a monarchy and get it over with.

10 Pride goes before a fall. Substitute "Arrogance" for pride and I hope we are starting to see the unraveling of the obama myth in the second term

11 Roberts  thinks  its a tax,  so it is ok.

12 A small ray of hope?  A glimmer of glad tidings?  I am at a loss for words after these last months in the wilderness. Could SMOD be next?  If only AtC would apply herself....

13 It's almost as if you expect Obama to abide by the decision


how many divisions does the DC Court of Appeals have

14 http://www.ewtn.com/multimedia/live_player.asp?satname=domenglp watching a catholic steam of the March for Life stuff

15 oh wrong thread sorry for OT. Obama is a SCOAMT

16 Die you gravy sucking pig

17 There's no penalties for breaking "The Law Of The Land", is there?

18 how many divisions does the DC Court of Appeals have Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:43 AM (8sCoq) You might want to dig up Dick Nixon and ask him?

19 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

20 The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year. But, at this late date, what does it matter(tm)?

21 Wow. I'm gobsmacked that this actually happened,  given the insane twisting of the plain meaning of the Constitution for most of my adult life.

22 Obama is unconstitutional

So is Michelles new Helmet do.

23 You and your little nephew too Baron.

24 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

Yay!

Also: Where's Kratos when you need him?

25 “The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote. “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

SMOOSH !!

26

Die you gravy sucking pig

 

Did someone say gravy?

27 But, at this late date, what does it matter(tm)? Posted by: rickb223 at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (GFM2b) Very much. All the decision that the union controlled NLRB made are null and void and with only one constitutional member at the moment is out of business

28 “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.” That's not benchslapping. That's benchdorkinginthesqueakholing.

29 Forgive my stupidity about the law but can't this go to to the Supreme Court?

30 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window.

Actually, this is "just" a Federal Appeals Court, yes?  So nothing is final, here.  How far do you think the NRLB will take it?

31 Obama's Appointment To The NLRB Declared Unconstitutional

Every fiber of Barry's c*cksucking being is unconstitutional

32 Very much. All the decision that the union controlled NLRB made are null and void and with only one constitutional member at the moment is out of business --- So... since the NLRB is out of business, does that mean Boeing, Ford, and other companies can now give their unions the finger and expand to RTW states?

33 Very much. All the decision that the union controlled NLRB made are null and void and with only one constitutional member at the moment is out of business Trust me. I know. Was too lazy to sock Hildebeast.

34 16 Die you gravy sucking pig

Posted by: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen at January 25, 2013 11:44 AM (e8kgV)

That ain't gravy....

35 The court has made its decision.  Now let it enforce it.

36 So... since the NLRB is out of business, does that mean Boeing, Ford, and other companies can now give their unions the finger and expand to RTW states?

I'm not sure it's so simple.  TFG is certain to appeal to SCOTUS, and they'll probably ask for an injunction.  Assuming both are granted, that means no one can take any action based on this ruling until SCOTUS makes their own ruling.

37 Whoops; I didn't read the last section/.So nothing will happen while it is appealed and Obama will just keep on doing what he darn well pleases?

38 How far do you think the NRLB will take it? --- Depends on the implications. If it "only" throws out their decisions, they'll appeal. If it dissolves the NLRB until lawful appointments are made, they'll fight it tooth and nail to the SCOTUS and then ignore that decision as long as possible.

39 Down goes SCOAMF?

40 Down goes SCOAMF?

Posted by: cajun carrot at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (UZQM

On numerous men

41 Down goes NLRB!

Down goes NLRB!

Down goes NLRB!

42 Dont WOrry...Chief Justice Rinoberts will bend over backwards to find a way to write the majority decision on this exonerating El Presidente Flyface.

After all, we live in a new world muchachos, a world of hope and change and free burritos and cellphones for everyone!  ARRRRIIIIBAAAA!.

43 Obama lip synced the oath of office. 

44 NRLB is out?
NRLB is out!?

45

After  a  quick  review  of the analysis,  it is unlikely that the SCt will  overturn (if it takes it).   The discussion  is  over the definition of "recess"  as used by Obama and "the Recess"  of the Senate as defined in the Artice III power given to the President to appoint during "the Recess."

 

But  here   is  what I find  great.  The court writes:  "When  interpreting  a constitutional  provision,  we must look to the natural  meaning of hte text as it  would  have been understood  at the time of the ratification of the Constitution."  This is from Heller (the 2nd amend  case).

 

This  is  huge.  Heller  may  have done more than merely rightly  uphold  the 2nd  Am.  The  holding  in Heller  has  now shown  added benefits.

 

 

46 but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.

Yeah, but all the people who've lost jobs/wages aren't getting that year back.

47 Whoops; I didn't read the last section/.So nothing will happen while it is appealed and Obama will just keep on doing what he darn well pleases? Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (+qMCO) No not exactly. Any party could concievably ask for an expedited hearing and anyway it puts obama on notice he can't just do as he likes.

48 The Court has tossed the ball back in TFG's court.  Does TFG appeal to the Supreme Court?  He can try but it was a unanimous lower court ruling.  So the SCOTUS will look at that and what TFG tried, unless Kagan or Sotomayer get the case, SCOTUS won't look at it.  Even those two will have a tough time trying to sell the others into intervening to hear the case.

So TFG just got taken to the woodchipper.  And all those decisions made by this board are hence vacated. 

49

When I saw "Declared Unconstitutional" I jumped to the conclusion that it was a Supreme Court ruling.  But when I got to "Unanimous" I realized it could not possibly be.

 

Thanks Obama, for the banana republic.  No wonder flies find you irresistable.

50 That is just fine by me, I will just rev up the ole executive order machine. I can do damn near anything that way.

51 5 That sound from Boeing is not jet engines. Its lawyers revving up their word processors. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 11:39 AM (Mj6r9) Fully armed and operational battle station legal department.

52 Meh. He couldn't care less. The media won't report it. He shrugs and moves on to his next depredation. It's a numbers game. Sooner or later you overwhelm the system.

53 So, racism?

54 Don't worry; Obama's media colossus will get around this 'court decision'

I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him

55 It's really sad that this no-brainer decision that was unanimous thrills me.  It's almost like the court has read the Constitution and stuff!

56 After all, we live in a new world muchachos, a world of hope and change and free burritos and cellphones for everyone! ARRRRIIIIBAAAA!.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:49 AM (+OTLF)

Mmmm....burritos...with some hot sauce and lots of cilantro.

57 As always, the lower court decision doesn't matter - it's up to the Nazgul.

58 55 Don't worry; Obama's media colossus will get around this 'court decision'

I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him

Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (8sCoq)

The press would tongue his asshole for being so 'brilliant and edgy'.

59 Mmmm....burritos...with some hot sauce and lots of cilantro.

Dang.  Now I want to go to Freebirds.

60 Sorry to spoil it for you, but Obama doesn't give a shit and the entire democrat party went along with this bullshit even though they used the same tactics to stop Bush from doing it. So in other words they don't fucking give a shit about the Constitution.

61 I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

62 58 As always, the lower court decision doesn't matter - it's up to the Nazgul.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (hjRtO)

Are those the hamsters that Moochelle eats whole?

63 OT: Great comment on the thinkprogress twitfeed announced former blogger Denis McDonough's appointment as WH Chief of Staff (D-e-n-i-s? Rich kid, methinks): Heidi ‏@reshas @thinkprogress Obama obviously consulted his binder full of liberal bloggers & OLD WHITE DUDES...

64 King Obama dissolves Supreme Court-executes all justices, with the exception of three so-called females. 

65 49 The Court has tossed the ball back in TFG's court. Does TFG appeal to the Supreme Court? He can try but it was a unanimous lower court ruling. So the SCOTUS will look at that and what TFG tried, unless Kagan or Sotomayer get the case, SCOTUS won't look at it. Even those two will have a tough time trying to sell the others into intervening to hear the case.

So TFG just got taken to the woodchipper. And all those decisions made by this board are hence vacated.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (Mj6r9)

Bless your heart...you still think the world is pure and good and that men of good concience work in washington that abide and respect the rule of law....

66 I'm not sure it's so simple. TFG is certain to appeal to SCOTUS, and they'll probably ask for an injunction. Assuming both are granted, that means no one can take any action based on this ruling until SCOTUS makes their own ruling. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (8y9MW)

SCOTUS could also grant emergency cert since one could argue that the practical need for immediate resolution should be weighed against any advantage gained by taking a "wait and see" approach - which is what you get with an injunction.

67 Just buy more AR's in 6.5 creedmore caliber, thats a hot button right now...That 2k spent on an AR is better than pissing the cash donation to the softer more pliable Republican Party..We simply buy AR's until they become a preservation point...

68 How soon before McConnell trades the appointments for some magic beans?

69 Happy Friday!

70 Flies always land on shit. Q.E.D.

71 Women in combat? What would Patton or Ike say?

72 That's not benchslapping. That's benchdorkinginthesqueakholing.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:46 AM (VtjlW)

My broken leg only hurts when I laugh, but God it was worth it ATC. lol! You slay me.

73 No women in combat.  Period.  And for that reason. 

74 I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him The Onion: Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama's Double-Homicide http://is.gd/1RzYfh

75 Fwiw, SCOTUS is hearing a birther argument in Feb. Somehow that Ortiz lady got an actual fucking elector (who actually has standing to challenge, being an elector) to join her cause (who probably wiggled into being an elector for such a purpose).

76 59 55
Don't worry; Obama's media colossus will get around this 'court decision'

I do believe Obama could kill a guy and the press would cover for him


Posted by: Jones in CO at January 25, 2013 11:51 AM (8sCoq)

The press would tongue his asshole for being so 'brilliant and edgy'.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 11:52 AM (7xPCu)

What do you mean the press WOULD tongue his asshole?

Where the fuck have you been the past five years?  the press has been tonsil deep up his ass non stop telling him his shit dont stink and his farts are the air that they breathe...the press...LOL...lets just call them what they are....useless shitsucking asswhipes.

77 Smartest man ever to hold the office! Also a "professor" of constitutional law. Yay!

78 "...and anyway it puts obama on notice he can't just do as he likes."

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 25, 2013 11:50 AM (9Bj8R)

 

I doubt President Obama feels he is on-notice for anything. Aside from the failure of the Democrats to enact promised cap-and-trade legislation (which the President sidestepped by pumping up the regulatory regime of the EPA), he has succeeded at pretty much everything he's attempted. That's why Romney's portrayal of Obama as a 'Nice guy in over his head' was such an epic failure as a campaign meme. The President is neither. 

79 5 That sound from Boeing is not jet engines. Its lawyers revving up their word processors.
---
Nah. They run on batteries. They will just be blowing smoke.

80 >Women in combat? What would Patton or Ike say?


That Leon Panetta... knows no more about fighting a war... than he does about fornicating

81 67 I'm not sure it's so simple. TFG is certain to appeal to SCOTUS, and they'll probably ask for an injunction. Assuming both are granted, that means no one can take any action based on this ruling until SCOTUS makes their own ruling. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (8y9MW)

Obama stamps feet and whines;SCOTUS pats him on the head to watch him gurgle and coo; TFG gets his way.

82 SCOTUS could also grant emergency cert since one could argue that the practical need for immediate resolution should be weighed against any advantage gained by taking a "wait and see" approach - which is what you get with an injunction. Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 25, 2013 11:54 AM (sbV1u) Yeah. That. This is going to go to SCOTUS and I fully expect SCOTUS to grant cert. I'm not versed at all in the labyrinth of FRCP as it applies to the Supremes so I don't know if emergency cert would automatically act as a stay or if a separate stay petition would need to be filed. I would assume that a stay would be issued since this is an utter nightmare in implications (hahahahahahahaha). That being said, this problem has been known ever since the appointments were made. It's not as if it's a shock that these decisions are being challenged. I have no idea whatsoever how SCOTUS would rule on the underlying case.

83 From Volokh:

This is in pretty clear conflict with an Eleventh Circuit opinion and is a broader basis for invalidating the recess appointments than I anticipated.  I suspect this one is destined for the Supreme Court.

84 #55 It would add to his street cred. 

85 The millions of wagons circled around the chosen one will never be penetrated by petty things such as this.  Try again, suckers.

86 Yup never forget this is the Constitutional Scholar who liberals say would have schooled James Madison on the matter.

Fuck Obama

87 OT but apparently Rubio endorsed the women in combat thing?

if all/most of the prospective GOP candidates end up supporting this (maybe partially cuz they've been spooked by the waronwomen crap) i will be sad. eventually deficit-counting will be the only accepted trucon position

Posted by: JDP at January 25, 2013 11:55 AM (60GaT)

 

I was wondering, would it be alright now to be able to physically respond to a liberal, women-in-combat supporting woman who is running her mouth which would otherwise be justification for a punch if it were coming from a man?

88 "In short, we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession
recesses."

BOOM!

89

I  think  this is  a   pretty  important  case.  One,  it involves  something  that some might consider a  political  question.   It  is a process  issue  really,  and  the  Court  found in favor  of following  the  process set forth in the Constitution.  Apply this to the origination  clause.

 

Further,  it uses  Heller  to basically change  how  the  Constitution  should be interpreted.  This  is a big departure. 

 

If  I'm  Obama,  I'm  not  so sure I'd  want the Supreme  Court to take  up this case, because  I don't see how  he  could  win.  The  same  five in Heller would likely  uphold  this case, with disastourous  results.

This  may go down as a  pretty landmark  Supreme  Court  case.

90 @ 83 Besides, he does not have a Chaplin who is on good grounds with the Lord..

91 If I'm Obama, I'm not so sure I'd want the Supreme Court to take up this case, because I don't see how he could win. The same five in Heller would likely uphold this case, with disastourous results. This may go down as a pretty landmark Supreme Court case. --- He's an arrogant-enough SCOAMF that he may think he can buffalo Roberts into voting his way again.

92 DC Circuit (Sentelle, Henderson, Griffith)

93 He's an arrogant-enough SCOAMF that he may think he can buffalo Roberts into voting his way again.

Didn't you know?  The NRLB is a tax.

94 @76 that link didn't work for me, but this one does: http://tinyurl.com/6a99xht

95 Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 25, 2013 11:57 AM (+OTLF)

I haven't been watching any TV at all for about four years now, so you get what you can get.

96 #94  Do you mean John "Cokie" Roberts? 

97 NLRB is a tax?  Why yes it is, a tax on productivity.

98 Well   according  to  Volokh,  there  is a  Circuit  Court  conflict,  so it is likely  the Court  takes  this  on.   If  the  conservatives  win  out  on this one,  it could be huge.  Not  just  with  respect  to  the  NLBR,  but for some of the broader  issues  involved.  How do you interpret the  Constitution, and when should  the Court intervene  in disputes  between the two branches.

99 94 Brandon in BR,

yeah well Kagan has to recuse herself....well no "not really" I guess but if so it just quickens the undermining of faith in law which is good for what I want.

A new free America beside the blue one.

100 He's an arrogant-enough SCOAMF that he may think he can buffalo Roberts into voting his way again. Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 25, 2013 12:01 PM (e0xKF) Actually I have a hunch even the liberal scum on the Court would go our way on this one. A) It's really not that important to obama in the long run B) they could use it to show they are not just mindless liberal scum But I could be wrong.

101 Anybody here know how the word Hooker got originated? How far we have come.

102 88 Yup never forget this is the Constitutional Scholar who liberals say would have schooled James Madison on the matter.

Fuck Obama

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (LRFds)

He could probably school JM on rolling blunts, but that's about it.

103 Memo: SCOTUS annual picnic in Fort Marcy Park cancelled.

104 If I'm Obama, I'm not so sure I'd want the Supreme Court to take up this case, because I don't see how he could win I've grown...

105 #104  Check your civil war texts--under Joseph Hooker. 

106 B) they could use it to show they are not just mindless liberal scum

The problem there being that they pretty well are just mindless liberal scum.

107 Finally I wake up to good news!

108 Finally some good news and a great bitch slapping.  I can not find the names of the three judges.  I know David Sentelle on the Appeals Court and expect he was one of the three.

He use to be GOP chair in my county and he is HARD CORE!  Reagan appointee.

109 102 94 Brandon in BR,

yeah well Kagan has to recuse herself....well no "not really" I guess but if so it just quickens the undermining of faith in law which is good for what I want.

A new free America beside the blue one.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 25, 2013 12:02 PM (LRFds)

Let's not get carried away with this 'HERself' business...I'm pretty sure Kagan shaves every morning.

110 I think this news qualifies for Japanese bunny-girl.
http://youtu.be/6VU0TVQtPv0

111 104 Anybody here know how the word Hooker got originated? How far we have come. --- Why the fuck can't I have a GOOD thing associated with me, like that bastard Burnside?

112 >Anybody here know how the word Hooker got originated? How far we have come.

Posted by: Clemenza at January 25, 2013 12:03 PM (Q8Pu5)

The story I heard was that Hooker was a Civil War general, and the prostitutes that followed his army to service the troops became known as "Hooker's"

ymmv

113 /points and laughs

114 General  Hooker and Hooker's  girls.

115 F*ck John Roberts. Just wanted to add that.

116 @ 108 I am old enough to know , I was educated prior to the rewrite of history by the Liberal Emeritus

117 Let's not get carried away with this 'HERself' business...I'm pretty sure Kagan shaves every morning.

Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (7xPCu)

There are times when its good to let nature take its course.

118
The NLRB itself is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned.  Each state should decide its union rulings.

Unless of course, its a tax.  #SCOTUSscrotus.

119 Kagan went to the Ladies Room once but had to recuse herself.  I did see her in a china shop once. 

120 112 Let's not get carried away with this 'HERself' business...I'm pretty sure Kagan shaves every morning. Posted by: model_1066 at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (7xPCu) She shaves her tongue.

121 Good news finally.  But this is such a small issue not sure it deserves so much high-fiving. 

Obamacare declared constitutional, argument over the definition of a "recess" declared maybe unconstitutional.

Let me know with executive orders have been declared unconstitutional and I'll start to get excited.

122 The problem there being that they pretty well are just mindless liberal scum. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 25, 2013 12:04 PM (8y9MW) Yes, well, there is that little flaw in my theory

123 It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Ha-HAHHHH !!!

124 @ 123 that not true her partner prefers it that way!!!

125

My great grandmother  was a Hooker (uppercase, not lowercase).  I want to use it as a middle name  for one of my  children, but she won't let me. 

126 So is Michelles new Helmet do.


I know I will be labeled raaaaciiiisssst for saying so, but it is eerily similar to the haircuts on Chas Heston's simian girlfriend in the original Planet of the Apes.  Seriesly.  Same cut.  I would say the same if it was Laura Bush or Sarah Palin or anyone else. 

127 She shaves her tongue.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 25, 2013 12:07 PM (XkWWK)

Nipples, too.

128 Who would win in a mud wrestling contest--Elena Kagan or Janet Napolitano?

129 4th VA, I would hope both would sink into the mud and never been seen again.

130 Would this court order have been made to a white President?


No?


RACISM!!!

131 45 NRLB is out?
NRLB is out!?


Yeah, I'll believe that when Michigan gets "The Right to work" passed.


What?

132 @117 So Hooker was the most powerful pimp of the Civil War.  I wonder if he had a bottom bitch.

133 Hooker had a Suki-Vor?

134 131 Who would win in a mud wrestling contest--Elena Kagan or Janet Napolitano?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:09 PM (wbmaj)

Let's just say it's like Alien VS Predator: whoever wins, we all lose.

135 131 Who would win in a mud wrestling contest--Elena Kagan or Janet Napolitano?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 25, 2013 12:09 PM (wbmaj)

Probably a draw, since both will we doing a lot of groping.

136 I have no idea whatsoever how SCOTUS would rule on the underlying case. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 25, 2013 11:59 AM (VtjlW)

I think even the dumbest liberal on the court would agree with the lower court.

Then again....I thought Romney would win.  So...yeah....that.

137 >>I don't know if emergency cert would automatically act as a stay or if a separate stay petition would need to be filed.

I don't see how an "injunction" or "stay" would accomplish anything other than preventing THE PARTIES TO THIS PARTICULAR LITIGATION from engaging in any action.  Generally, courts can't issue orders binding entities that are not parties to the action (there are some exceptions, like ex-parte orders in domestic abuse situations).

I think the NLRB is screwed here.  Unless it wants to risk having even more if its decisions overturned, it will likely have to sit on all of the matters before it until the SC decides the issue.  Which means that, until then, it can do no damage.

138 Then again....I thought Romney would win. So...yeah....that. Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 25, 2013 12:11 PM (sbV1u) And that Roberts would strike down Obamacare...

139 Gen Hooker story is a good one, but it is false.  Read here:

But while General Hooker's men were no Boy Scouts, they weren't the source of "hooker." "Hooker" showed up almost twenty years before the Civil War, and is probably based on the slang term "to hook," which back then meant "to entice or swindle." An 1850 magazine illustration, for instance, titled "Hooking A Victim" shows ladies of the evening, in hoop skirts no less, plying their trade at Broadway and Canal Streets in New York City.

140 As long as Maggot Boy is miffed, I'm good.

141 143 HoboJerky,

I just wish he would have gone ahead and sided with Ogabe on the whole mess.

Roberts managed to find a way to fuck up even fucking up.

142 Wait a minute, now that this ruling has been issued.... Has anyone checked on Michelle's eating?  Or is she throwing things at TFG for being an idiot.

143 Yay, a win for the American team. When does a lawsuit over the illegal E.O. granting amnesty (masquerading as "prosecutorial discretion") get heard?

144 If the Supreme Court turns the Administration down, they can appeal to the MSM.

145 This is good. Cordray is an ass and in the regulatory capture pocket of the big banks. Looking forward to the CFPB being challenged.

146 "Unconstitutional."

Going to be hearing that word a lot in the next four years since Ear Leader can let his freak flag fly now.

147 But... But... But... I calmed the seas.... cleaned the air... healed the Earth... given all of you Skittle shitting unicorns!!!  And this is what you do to me!!!!  Overturn MY ROYAL EDICTS!!!

NO CAKE FOR YOU!

148 First of a Thousand Cuts, on his way to Lamest of Lame Ducks.

149 The Washington Monument just got shoved up Richard Cordray's pansy ass

150 155 The Washington Monument just got shoved up Richard Cordray's pansy ass

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 25, 2013 12:24 PM (R4Bz0)

He was asking for it.

151 On topic, what a great ruling.  All of those asshole rulings out the door.  Suhweeeet.

152 153 But... But... But... I calmed the seas.... cleaned the air... healed the Earth... given all of you Skittle shitting unicorns!!! And this is what you do to me!!!! Overturn MY ROYAL EDICTS!!!

NO CAKE FOR YOU!

Posted by: King Choomer the First at January 25, 2013 12:22 PM (Jls4P)

I already done slaughtered and ate my unicorn...what's your next act?

153

To weave some of our ongoing media analysis into this little matter, recall that when, in the early post-9/11 years, the SCOTUS or some lower court would issue a (usually wrong-headed, sometimes absurd and catastrophic, as in Kennedy's usurpation of the treaty power in, I think, Boumedienne vs. Bush) a decision against a Bush Administration policy - or even just a restraining order to freeze the action - the "press" would always "report" it thusly:  "in a strong rebuke to the Bush Administration's aggressive policies on lawful detention/surveillance/the War on Terror" ... blah blah blah.

 

Iraq was an "unpopular war" but somehow Obamacare has never been an "unpopular health care reform".  And so on. (and when, often, the Iraq war polling was grossly distorted, in the now customary fashion)

 

Remember, it's the subtle flavoring of the marinade that can matter, when that marinade is so pervasive, and soaks all but the few who know the actual topics themselves. 

154 O/T old but still funny!


DON CHERRY, Canadian Hockey Commentator for CBC Television, was asked on a local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one rag head terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will save just one Canadian or American life, then I have only three things to say: 'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."

155 How do you interpret the Constitution, and when should the Court intervene in disputes between the two branches.

This does, and always, comes down to "standing".
Since there are many businesses affected by NLRB rulings, it was much easier to get "standing" to have your day in court.

156 This is great news -- the Constitution is apparently still in effect, though beat up like a red headed stepchild.
 
I went and read the AP's 'reporting' on this topic. While they couldn't spin it very well, they did manage to focus on the fact that all 3 judges issuing this preezy cornholing were appointed by GOP presidents.
 

157 Constitution?!!!  I don't need no stinkin' constitution!

158 Flaming Skull?  Maybe you need a Flying Pig?  Anything??

159 Politically?  I like this ruling, of course.  Fuck these guys.

Legally?  It has some real problems.  First of all, it creates a circuit split with the 11th Circuit, so SCOTUS is taking this one, no-brainer.

More importantly, the effect of this decision would, as I read it, be to eliminate ALL recess appointments, forever.  That doesn't just mean Rob Cordray and the NLRB stooges, it also means John Bolton.  It means the Senate (currently held by Democrats, I might point out) would be able to torpedo any appointment to any position at any time with no recourse for the executive branch to fill it, even in emergencies.  Because what would happen is that Harry Reid would simply move to make sure the Senate never recesses, from one term to the next.  Always keep it open as a skeleton crew even when the Senators have gone back home for vacation (this is, more or less, what Republicans did through via parliamentary maneuvering, to bring about the situation where the NLRB appointments were made). 

I think SCOTUS is going to try to find a way to 'split the baby' on this one.

160 Gen Hooker story is a good one, but it is false. Read here:

But while General Hooker's men were no Boy Scouts, they weren't the
source of "hooker." "Hooker" showed up almost twenty years before the
Civil War, and is probably based on the slang term "to hook," which back
then meant "to entice or swindle." An 1850 magazine illustration, for
instance, titled "Hooking A Victim" shows ladies of the evening, in hoop
skirts no less, plying their trade at Broadway and Canal Streets in New
York City.

***

I find that excessive adherence to fact has destroyed many a good story and I have vowed that it will never happen to a story of mine!

161 I can imagine the lead story on NBC by Brian "18 credits" Williams:  In a stunning and obviously wrong-headed abuse of their roles, the extreme right wing DC Court of Appeals stuck their noses where they didn't belong and interfered with the newly re-inaugurated and reinvigorated President's ability to choose people to do the work of the people who elected him to a second glorious term.  And blah blah blah

162 From the opinion:

>>>""In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of “happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess."

No way that gets upheld.  No way.  Thomas would uphold it, but I doubt you'd even get Scalia or Alito on that one, much less Roberts and Kennedy.  And frankly, this interpretation would create chaos...it would in fact retroactively invalidate pretty much every single recess appointment made since 1945.  Stare decises is going to come into play with this one.

163 Overheard from Miguel Estrada, “This is a big f***ing deal.”

164 Just so people understand what the problem here is:

This opinion basically says that recess appointments (which are authorized by the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, they're not just some extra-legal procedure 'innovated' by the executive branch in recent times or something) can only occur:

1.) When the Senate FORMALLY declares itself to be in a state of "The Recess."

2.) Only for positions that became vacant DURING that recess.  In other words, if you submitted a guy for nomination to U.N. Ambassador (read: John Bolton) and the asshole Democratic Senators refused to give him an up-or-down vote, you cannot appoint him during a formal recess under this opinion, because the vacancy occurred BEFORE that time.  The idea here presumably is that the Senate's failure to act on the nomination was a legitimate expression of its legislative branch powers of appointment and confirmation, so we're not going to allow the executive the opportunity to circumvent that by waiting until they recess.  Only spots that suddenly become vacant and need to be appointed in an emergency situation can be appointed via recess powers.

There is actually a fair amount of logical virtue to this interpretation.  But the problem is we have to deal with the world we actually live in.  Problem one: if this is upheld, the Senate will never go into formal recess again.  They will simply keep the lights on (even when everyone has actually gone back home) from term to term, with no gaps in between.  In other words, they will be in recess for practical intents and purposes, but because haven't used the magical formal language, they're not in recess.  In effect, it will nullify part of the Constitution entirely through parliamentary procedure.

The second problem is even worse: an interpretation such as the one the Court offered in #2 would invalidate pretty much every single recess appointment made in the last sixty years.  It would open all the rulings made by those now-invalidated appointees in their various administrative agencies to retroactive legal challenge.  (I presume the vast majority of those challenges would be slapped down eventually, but the costs and time and uncertainty created by the litigation would be massive.)  It would create CHAOS, in other words. 

I fucking hate the way Obama abused the language of the recess appointment clause in the NLRB appointments.  I would like to see a court decision that somehow manages to invalidate those without destroying the rest of the power, however.  The real problem, of course, is that partisan politics has destroyed the way the Senate operates over the past 30 years: the sorts of maneuvers that gave rise to this issue (i.e. "fake recesses," tricks to prevent the executive from appointing someone who some activist group or lobby hates, the hyper-politicization of every single appointment) didn't exist back in the 1980s for the most part. 

What we're really seeing here?  The breakdown of our system of governance.

165 168 Jeff B,

eh maybe....I could see the court deciding that King Putt declaring unilaterally that the Senate was recessed is a big enough show of assholery that they need to change course.

166 170 Jeff B,

and that is why I wonder if the court is about to get strict constructionalist on his ass....?

He basically is removing all deference to precedence and language "because" well that shit is dangerous.

167 I sort of see what the DC Circuit was trying to do here: they probably know full well that the Senate isn't going into formal Recess anymore because of these appointment hijinks, so their idea is: "okay, we'll return the process to its 'original understanding' that the only people the Prez can appoint during a recess are for vacancies that suddenly happened during that recess, so that it would be used only in emergencies."  The idea here is that, with that safeguard in place, the Senate would be able to go into recess, safe in the knowledge that the Prez can't use it to appoint Saul Alinsky to head the EPA or whatnot. 

(For those who are thinking one step ahead: no, this wouldn't lead to executive branch appointees "timing" their vacancies to happen during recesses so that the Prez can sneak in unacceptable candidates, because the rule of recess appointments is that they're only allowed to last as long as the Senate remains out-of-session.  Once the new term begins, they have to step down and submit to a formal confirmation process.)

But the problem is that this creates chaos by retroactively invalidating pretty much every damn recess appointment made for more than half a century, and potentially calling the validity of the decisions made by those invalid appointees into question.  Something's gotta give here.

168 Something's gotta give here. Alex, can I have "The US Constitution" for $20T, please?

169 I guess this is on topic here: Saw on huffpo/Aol the headline that "Federal Court Deals Blow To Obama" I haven't read his autobiography but wasn't the guy who dealt blow to Obama his college roommate? lolz!

170 I am broken-hearted over this, and cannot see how it is possible. Can't Elizabeth Warren just prorogue the court? Capitalism must be saved from itself!







Who will save it from Obama is an entirely different matter....

171

Jeff B., just wondering.  Was this suit brought in a way to invalidate ALL recess appointments, including the sort that have occurred, without controversy (but with temporal limitations, specifically that such appointments last only for the duration of the sitting Congress, until it is adjourned sine die) - not to invalidate the whole recess appointment process?  Seems odd that reversing the NLRB outrage would call for anything more than re-asserting the long-accepted process.

 

As for your observations re decline in our civic culture and governance in DC, tell me about it.  Slaved in the Senate for many years in the 80s.  There's almost nothing of importance that occurs/doesn't occur that was even imaginable back then.  No budget?  Are you kidding?  (more importantly - no firestorm of controversy, incl. from members of the majority AND the press, about no budget?  are you kidding?)  A debacle with a body count like Benghazi not resulting in the live BBQ'ing of the SecState?  Are you kidding?  Trigger-pulling American forces as in Libya without even a hint of approval or even co-ordination from the Hill?  Are you fucking kidding?  None of this would have been believable, just a short time ago.  (BTW, I know from direct knowledge that the Bush Admin. was so diligent and forthcoming in their briefings on war matters that at several points different congressional bodies/staffers sort of asked them to back off, take it easy, and just send them some short written summaries - they were literally being "consulted" to death - so the degradation of the civic culture has NOT been uniform, steady, or bi-partisan, not even close).

 

 

172 One, the court can apply the rule prospectively--see what they did with the Sentencing Guidelines.  They did not open the doors for everyone sentenced under the newly unconstitutional guidelines system.  Second, they could punt and declare it a political question (not likely because of enforcement actions taken in court would be suspect).  My guess is that due to separation of powers, only Scotus will rule that only Congress can say when or when they are not in recess or session--president has no role unless of course House and Senate disagree on adjourning.  President cannot be able to dictate when the House or Senate is in session--plain text of Article I defeats vague implied powers in Article II regarding appointments. 

Don't be too sure that this is not a rerun of Chadha where the legislative veto--long assumed to be constitutional was overturned 7-2.  This overturned countless laws but was not applied retroactively except in the case at hand. 

173 This is why I say that it doesn't matter what Obama says. He has ZERO interest in doing the law or Constitution says. He is going to do what he wants to do and defy you to sue him in court.

174 2 Federal Appeals Court sends Obama a big “First Union” This should screw-up every meeting, every decision that has been made for about the last year (i.e. total chaos). 19 This is seriously a BFD. There's a metric fuckton of decisions that just got thrown out the window. 36 The court has made its decision. Now let it enforce it. 47 but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. 48 Whoops; I didn't read the last section/.So nothing will happen while it is appealed and Obama will just keep on doing what he darn well pleases? Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 25, 2013 11:48 AM (+qMCO) No not exactly. Any party could concievably ask for an expedited hearing and anyway it puts obama on notice he can't just do as he likes. 124 Good news finally. But this is such a small issue not sure it deserves so much high-fiving. Obamacare declared constitutional, argument over the definition of a "recess" declared maybe unconstitutional. Let me know with executive orders have been declared unconstitutional and I'll start to get excited. YEAH!!! Now take this fucking ball and shove it up Obama's ass until it pops out of his mouth!!!!

175 180 This is why I say that it doesn't matter what Obama says. He has ZERO interest in doing the law or Constitution says. He is going to do what he wants to do and defy you to sue him in court. Oh yes, let's tie up Obama for 4 years with hundreds of thousands of lawsuitsÂ….

176

You are scum. You should be executed for this.
I am not satisfied with the state of our nation; however, I wonÂ’t respect a hypocritical racist calling the president a liar, epciscally when telling lies about the president himself.
Man, I love being right! Listen to these stupid racists here claim this is a Victory for America! ItÂ’s is NOT! It IS a Victory for the racists, bigots, and extremist black-haters on the right! Heck, ALL these comments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are racists! You are making the KKK proud with your racist rants!

The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary
recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in
recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has
effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in
recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from
exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators
insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are
sessions during which NO Senate business is conducted and instead one or
two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds.
But gimmicks do not override the PresidentÂ’s constitutional authority
to make appointments to keep the government running.

Funny how these racists obviously misquote and misuse the laws of the land to further their hateful desire to get the black man out of the White House. And funny that they didnÂ’t care about the law of the land when Bush was running the show.

Obama broke NO law with recess appointments.
Anyone who calls Obama a Communist is a stupid racist!

Anyone who calls Obama a Marxist is a stupid racist!

Anyone who calls Obama a Dictator is a racist!

Anyone who calls Obama a Traitor is a stupid racist!

Has Obama physically seized the means of production through force of
arms? Has he abolished elections and outlawed opposition parties? Has
he rounded up millions of people and placed them into camps, or executed
them outright? No?
Then heÂ’s probably not a Communist dictator. Not to mention, he has proven Over and Over he is legally able to be President!
You have absolutely zero evidence to back up your assertion that the President is a “Marxist.”
He is not a traitor, but you are.
You go against a constitutionally elected President who was voted for by most of AmericaÂ’s electorate.

Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Obama isnÂ’t an elitist, anti-American, Socialist/Statist! The Republican Party is not a cancer in the body of America, a party of racists and religious bigots. The President doesnÂ’t hate this country; I believe the extremist republicans hate this country because Obama is running this country. The President doesnÂ’t cater to one race of people; heÂ’s in this for all races of people. See, this is just an extreme far right post, which is designed to bate racism and hatred towards the President.

There is NO violation of the Constitution until a Federal Court rules it so. Do you mind telling us exactly what the heck you are talking about? That is important because people like you have been crying for years that Obama violates the Constitution every time you hear something you donÂ’t like, which is totally incorrect.

Judge a man by his deeds. There a NO signs and portents to judge Obama as evil.

Obama, born in Hawaii, = US Citizenship. His parents could have been martians. Their citizenship is irrelevant. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen as far as the US is concerned. The birthers claims with regard to Obama is that he was NOT born in Hawaii.
The proof is in the Pudding, this is NOT about protecting the Constitution, it never was.

This is about keeping the “White” in the White House! All Obama -haters are racists!

Calling the POTUS a POS and a fraud seems to the usual calling call for you right-wing racists and bigots like you!

177 You mad bro?

178 Listen to these stupid racists here claim this is a Victory for America! ItÂ’s is NOT! It IS a Victory for the racists, bigots, and extremist black-haters on the right! Heck, ALL these comments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are racists! You are making the KKK proud with your racist rants!

Oops!  Think you made ..........a racist comment there.  Assuming we are all white, I guess?