Ace of Spades HQ

January 13, 2014

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Obama's Claimed Power to Make Temporary Appointments Even When the Senate is Not Recessed
— Ace

While the Constitution permits the President to make temporary appointments to executive positions when the Senate is in recess, Obama, get this, violated the Constitution by claiming the Senate was in recess when the Senate itself said it wasn't in recess. His appointees -- illegal ones -- made some rulings on the National Labor Relations Board which should be nullities, as men with no right to sit on the NLRB did in fact sit there.

Obama claims, get this, that his Constitutional powers grow when he decides a coequal branch of government is being "intransigent" and failing to give him everything he wants.

The argument did not seem to persuade most of the Court. Even the liberal members seemed wary of the claim:

The court battle between the Obama administration and Senate Republicans is an outgrowth of the increasing partisanship and political stalemate that have been hallmarks of Washington over the past 20 years, and especially since Obama took office in 2009.
Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan seized on the political dispute to make the point to Verrilli that "congressional intransigence" to Obama nominees may not be enough to win the court fight.
Kagan, Verrilli's predecessor as Obama's top Supreme Court lawyer, suggested that it "is the Senate's role to determine whether they're in recess."

Perhaps the most unfortunate moment for presidential authority was a comment by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that modern Senate-White House battles over nominations were a political problem, not a constitutional problem. Senators of both parties have used the ConstitutionÂ’s recess appointment provisions to their own advantage in their Â“political fights,Â” Breyer said, but noted that he could not find anything in the history of the clause that would Â“allow the president to overcome Senate resistanceÂ” to nominees.
...
Second, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., commented that the Senate has Â“an absolute right to refuseÂ” to approve any of a presidentÂ’s nominees, whether or not the president thinks that such a refusal is Â“intransigence.Â” Roberts also sought to explore how far the Senate could go to frustrate a president over recess appointments, wondering if it could simply decide never to take a recess.
...
The lengthy argument, taken as a whole, seemed to go considerably better for those opponents than for the defender of presidential authority, U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. The Solicitor General made little headway in arguing that the Constitution meant the president to have significant power to make temporary appointments, and that deferring to the Senate would, in effect, destroy that power. He seemed to startle even some of the more liberal judges when he said that, if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most.

Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab.

Via @charlescwcooke.

Posted by: Ace at 10:05 AM | Comments (273)
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'll go get the others.

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 13, 2014 10:07 AM (LSJmV)

2 You mean they're arguing he is king? No way!

Posted by: Adam at January 13, 2014 10:08 AM (Aif/5)

3 Kagan, Breyer, and Roberts against?! Perhaps these are the Obama marriages that are exploding.

Posted by: t-bird at January 13, 2014 10:08 AM (FcR7P)

4
Becuz I sez so

Posted by: Barackus Obamacus at January 13, 2014 10:09 AM (bkTIc)

Kagan... suggested that it "is the Senate's role to determine whether they're in recess."

Like a steel trap, that mind.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 13, 2014 10:09 AM (eGmvn)

6 Don't read too much into the oral argument. Never too late for our side to fold.

Posted by: duke at January 13, 2014 10:09 AM (d3clc)

7 "congressional intransigence" Hey, this didn't seem to be an issue when the Democrats were blocking all of Bush's appointments. Hmmm.

Posted by: DangerGirl at January 13, 2014 10:10 AM (A9hpr)

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

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:10 AM (PYAXX)

9 I give myself authority to appoint a few more justices.

Posted by: Obama at January 13, 2014 10:10 AM (hFL/3)

10 Well, there's absolutely no Constitutional support for the Administration's position, but what the heck? "It's a tax!"

Posted by: Chief "Justice" John Roberts at January 13, 2014 10:10 AM (PYAXX)

11 Obama's back up argument: L'Ã©tat, c'est moi.

Posted by: imp at January 13, 2014 10:10 AM (L9AnB)

12 Relax. It's a tax.

Posted by: Dread Butt Pirate Roberts [/i] [/b] at January 13, 2014 10:11 AM (yZwfe)

13 And thus, the nuclear option on judges.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 13, 2014 10:11 AM (eGmvn)

14 Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab. Ruth. Ruth. Wake up dear. It's time for your Metamucil.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 13, 2014 10:11 AM (CRyse)

15 I Wun!

Posted by: Obama's Argument at January 13, 2014 10:11 AM (QYq5z)

16 Hey, this didn't seem to be an issue when the Democrats were blocking all of Bush's appointments. Hmmm. It does seem as though Democrats believe themselves to be Humpty-Dumpty when it comes to the Constitution: "It means what I say it means: no more, and no less."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:11 AM (PYAXX)

17 This just might go our way...

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at January 13, 2014 10:11 AM (Wp8ly)

18 "Every other dictator in the world gets to do it!"

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 13, 2014 10:12 AM (BZAd3)

19 Well it seems Gaylord still has one Ringwraith in his corner.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 13, 2014 10:12 AM (sA4/D)

20 Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab Shocker, that. On the plus side, her clinging to life and power like a zombie leech is keeping Barry from naming a younger communist to her seat.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:12 AM (QupBk)

21 I get Constitutional Intransigence when I eat too much cheese.

Posted by: garrett at January 13, 2014 10:12 AM (QYq5z)

22 *rocks* Can't sleep. Delegation doctrine will eat me. Here's my utter WAG: the Court will rule the appointments were improper but will refuse to nullify the actions taken by the NLRB during that time because reasons.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at January 13, 2014 10:12 AM (VtjlW)

He seemed to startle even some of the more liberal judges when he said that, if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most.

Not out of loyalty to the constitution, mind you, but because he is giving away secrets.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 13, 2014 10:13 AM (eGmvn)

24 Obama claims to be a heterosexual too.

Posted by: MacGruber at January 13, 2014 10:13 AM (XxAYS)

25
"Now, Mr Verrili..... can you give me your thoughts on my pet theory that recess appointments are, in fact, subject to the controlling authority of the IRS based on the Executives broad leeway to tax???"

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at January 13, 2014 10:13 AM (nELVU)

26 This just might go our way... Great. Now I have Lenny Ktravitz in my head. Thanks Joffen.

Posted by: garrett at January 13, 2014 10:13 AM (QYq5z)

27
Silly Senate. Recesses are for kids.

Posted by: The wabbit knows at January 13, 2014 10:13 AM (bkTIc)

Obama claims, get this, that his Constitutional powers grow when he decides a coequal branch of government is being "intransigent" and failing to give him everything he wants.

----

By 'His' i presume you mean Barack Obama personally, not the office of the President of the United States.

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 13, 2014 10:13 AM (SO2Q8)

29 Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab.

That's it??

That's a win!

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 13, 2014 10:14 AM (MPIX5)

The fix to all this is going to be easy ... change super-majority requirement on all appointees ... then confirm them after the fact.

Hell ... I bet they get McCain, Graham, and Ayotte to vote for it.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 13, 2014 10:14 AM (xvy4E)

31 Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at January 13, 2014 02:12 PM (VtjlW) Allowing it for the Dems, and blocking the potential/probable 2016 GOP prez the option.

Posted by: AMDG at January 13, 2014 10:14 AM (t7OO0)

32 Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., commented that the Senate has Â“an absolute right to refuseÂ” to approve any of a presidentÂ’s nominees, whether or not the president thinks that such a refusal is Â“intransigence.Â” Just words, wingnutz. Don't get all excited. No way in hell I'd embarrass His Historicalness with a negative ruling. It's for the children. My children. I'd like to keep them.

Posted by: John Iscariot Roberts at January 13, 2014 10:14 AM (7ObY1)

33 I may be wrong on this, but being a CHECK is being intransigent.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at January 13, 2014 10:14 AM (659DL)

34 Here's my utter WAG: the Court will rule the appointments were improper but will refuse to nullify the actions taken by the NLRB during that time because reasons. Penumbras & eminations?

Posted by: rickb223 at January 13, 2014 10:15 AM (CRyse)

35 How much of a moron is Ruth Bader Ginsberg that she can't see that Obama doesn't get to declare the Congress in recession when it's not?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 13, 2014 10:15 AM (o4Xc4)

36 I look forward to more complaints from liberals that Kagan is a secret conservative.

Posted by: davem at January 13, 2014 10:15 AM (wmzCM)

37 If they uphold TFG's position, can he then say whether or not the Supreme Court is in session?

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:15 AM (3ZtZW)

38 Interesting stuff.... but hey, The One will ignore it anyway, and the Lapdog Media will get all swoony and fainthearted at how much of a Lightbringer he is...

Posted by: GuyfromNH at January 13, 2014 10:15 AM (3Liqf)

39 This is one of those issues upon which reasonable minds should not differ. The plain meaning of the Constitution and 200 years of precedent state that the Senate determines when it is in recess. If Ace's comment about Ginsburg is correct, I can't wait to see what she comes up with; maybe something like this: When a president of the extreme right (e.g. see Ford, Gerald) attempts to enslave the poor, any attempt at a recess appointment while the Senate remains in sessions usurps the inherent constitutional prerogatives of the Senate. However, when a noble lightworker attempts to put into place fellow noble-persons in a move that can only been seen as benefiting the masses, an intransigent Senate has abandoned its traditional role and must yield. QED.

Posted by: duke at January 13, 2014 10:15 AM (d3clc)

40 I look forward to more complaints from liberals that Kagan is a secret conservative. Posted by: davem at January 13, 2014 02:15 PM (wmzCM) Or reminding us that there may be *gasp* a Catholic like Sotomayor...

Posted by: AMDG at January 13, 2014 10:16 AM (t7OO0)

41 Will no one rid me of nine troublesome priests?

Posted by: His Majesty Barack the First at January 13, 2014 10:16 AM (MMC8r)

42 In recess even.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 13, 2014 10:16 AM (o4Xc4)

43 It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts. Â Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: Â“Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.Â” Â http://tinyurl.com/lsobtgf

Posted by: DangerGirl at January 13, 2014 10:16 AM (A9hpr)

44 Wouldn't it be strange if Sotomeyer and/or Kagen turned out to be actual Constitutional judges? Wasn't it Sotomeyer that inacted an injunction against Ocare for it's forcing the Catholic church to accept birth-control and abortions?

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 10:16 AM (lG8Uj)

45 Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab.
***

Is there any surprise that Ruth Bader Palpatine is on board with this?

Posted by: B at January 13, 2014 10:17 AM (XyoGP)

46 As far as I'm concerned if this court could just get a Kagan or a Sotomayor to settle in against untrammeled executive/bureaucratic power and for a rule of law reasonably documented and not subject to the outer peumbral orbits, I'd consider it a victory.

Posted by: JEM at January 13, 2014 10:17 AM (o+SC1)

47 35 How much of a moron is Ruth Bader Ginsberg that she can't see that Obama doesn't get to declare the Congress in recession when it's not? They're not morons. Commie/Progs will say and do anything, anything at all, to advance their agenda. They have no morals, no ethics and no shame. They will do whatever it takes to advance their communist agenda. And it works. They're winning.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 13, 2014 10:17 AM (7ObY1)

48 Or reminding us that there may be *gasp* a Catholic like Sotomayor...

Sotomayor is as much Catholic as I am Jewish.

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 13, 2014 10:17 AM (MPIX5)

49 This dick wants to be a dick-ta-tor, pure and simple. We've got three more years of this, if we're lucky.

Posted by: Dirty Old Man at January 13, 2014 10:17 AM (Yv5v6)

50 In Ruth 'Emily Litella' Ginsberg's defense, she probably thought they were talking about going out for some delicious Arby's roast beef.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:17 AM (rFjSX)

51 Justice Ginsberg will look towards Europe for support of these illegal appointments. As she has done in the past.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 13, 2014 10:18 AM (sA4/D)

52 Since the SCOTUS is in recess tonight, i'm going to make a recess judgement that what i did is not only constitutional, but also Wicked Sexy.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 13, 2014 10:18 AM (SO2Q8)

53 Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg. She will retire, and give O'douchenozzle an appointment.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:18 AM (aDwsi)

Glad to see that the Supremes took this before Barry stacked the DC Circuit with his "picks".

Ginsberg is a fucking joke and she should be impeached and tried for crimes against this nation.

Posted by: prescient11 at January 13, 2014 10:18 AM (tVTLU)

55 Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab.

Whoa, fetch me my fainting couch.

Posted by: joncelli at January 13, 2014 10:18 AM (RD7QR)

56
Wow.

Just think how far out of bounds you have to be when Kagaan, Sotomeyor, Breyer, and Kennedy rule against King Putt.

Posted by: fixeruuper at January 13, 2014 10:19 AM (nELVU)

57 Shorter version-

Supreme Court to Obama: "FUCK YOU"

Posted by: Vortex Lovera at January 13, 2014 10:19 AM (wtvvX)

58 @45 - I'm kinda convinced that this latest DOJ appointment of the Mumia flack is a stalking-horse for his Supreme Court appointment ambitions. If the Senate will take this one, they'll bend over for anything.

Posted by: JEM at January 13, 2014 10:19 AM (o+SC1)

59 Buzzy only retires if internal Dem polling shows a 2014 GOP Senate majority.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 13, 2014 10:19 AM (xvy4E)

60 Bingo!

Posted by: Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg at January 13, 2014 10:19 AM (MMC8r)

61 Commie/Progs will say and do anything, anything at all, to advance their agenda. They have no morals, no ethics and no shame. They will do whatever it takes to advance their communist agenda. And it works. They're winning. Posted by: BlueStateRebel ------------------- It is fairly easy to win if you are ruthless, and without remorse. That is our problem.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:19 AM (aDwsi)

62 Justice Ginsberg will look towards Europe for support of these illegal appointments. As she has done in the past. -------- I consult the constitution of South Africa when reviewing arguments.

Posted by: Justice Ginsburg at January 13, 2014 10:20 AM (Aif/5)

63 The King has always been able to dismiss Parliament, at least until after Charles I and the English Civil War ... wait a minute... Nevermind.

Posted by: imp at January 13, 2014 10:20 AM (L9AnB)

64 Also, as a cautionary note- I've heard it noted that often the Justices will be much more antagonistic toward the side they prefer, hoping that the lawyer in question can give them the justification they want. Considering the libs on the Court, they may just decide to rule in favor of TFG despite the fact there's no real Constitutional grounds to do so.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:20 AM (PYAXX)

65 Or alternatively, as an Ogden Nash couplet:

SCOTUS to POTUS:

"FUCK YOU, OTIS"

Posted by: Vortex Lovera at January 13, 2014 10:21 AM (wtvvX)

66
I fully expect the Commie in Chief to have full control of the US Politburo and Courts after a 9 - 0 decision.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 13, 2014 10:21 AM (n0DEs)

67 That Millard Fillmore was a helluva lay.

Posted by: Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg at January 13, 2014 10:21 AM (MMC8r)

68 The 'get this' makes me laugh. Every time.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at January 13, 2014 10:21 AM (fwARV)

69 22 *rocks* Can't sleep. Delegation doctrine will eat me.

Here's my utter WAG: the Court will rule the appointments were improper but will refuse to nullify the actions taken by the NLRB during that time because reasons.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at January 13, 2014 02:12 PM (VtjlW)

Deference. These guys would defer to a squirrel.

Posted by: joncelli at January 13, 2014 10:21 AM (RD7QR)

70
The Court only has a problem with this power if a Republican is in the White House. Only if the majority of the Court thinks HClinton will lose in 2016, they will rule against obama.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:21 AM (gYIst)

71 So let it be written So let it be done

Posted by: Pharoah Khuf-U the First at January 13, 2014 10:22 AM (O+vog)

Ruth Bader Ginsberg walks into a bar and orders a hot tottie.

The bartender says, " I recognize you. You are on the Supreme Court. Is there anyway I could get an autograph?"

Ginsberg proud that she was recognized says, " Thank you. sure I can"

The bartender says " Great, please have Justice Scalia sign it , Best Wishes, Bob"

Posted by: polynikes at January 13, 2014 10:22 AM (m2CN7)

73 MAAAAATLOCK!

Posted by: Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg at January 13, 2014 10:22 AM (MMC8r)

He [U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.] seemed to startle even some of the more liberal judges when he said that, if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most."

Wow. Scary stuff. Do you like your tyranny straight up or with a dash of bitters?

Posted by: troyriser at January 13, 2014 10:22 AM (gNlvW)

75 Justice Ginsberg will look towards Europe for support of these illegal appointments. As she has done in the past.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 13, 2014 02:18 PM (sA4/D)

----------------------------------------------

Don't count Breyer out of that either.

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 10:23 AM (lG8Uj)

76 You would think a Constitutional Scholar would know better?

Posted by: garrett at January 13, 2014 10:23 AM (QYq5z)

77 Ruth Bader Ginsburg - the only woman who can make a digital photo look like a daguerreotype.

Posted by: B at January 13, 2014 10:23 AM (XyoGP)

78 My "constitutional powers" grow every time I see a video of Kate Upton...

Posted by: Vortex Lovera at January 13, 2014 10:23 AM (wtvvX)

79 He [U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.] seemed to startle even some of the more liberal judges when he said that, if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most."

----

Wow.

So.... between "should we write it down" and "should we make it up as we go along".... he's arguing for "make it up as we go along".??

Posted by: fixeruuper at January 13, 2014 10:24 AM (nELVU)

80 Wouldn't it be strange if Sotomeyer and/or Kagen turned out to be actual Constitutional judges?

I've had a lot of cough syzzurp today--so many pretty colors!--but I'm having trouble hallucinating that.

Posted by: HR at January 13, 2014 10:24 AM (ZKzrr)

81 Yeah, I remember when Verilli was portrayed as "having a bad day" when he was arguing for Zerocare, too.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 13, 2014 10:25 AM (YmPwQ)

82 I used to babysit Abe Vigoda.

Posted by: Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg at January 13, 2014 10:25 AM (MMC8r)

83 Some branches are more co-equal than others.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 13, 2014 10:25 AM (A0sHn)

84 Eh, a little blackmail and Barry's got this one in the bag.

Posted by: --- at January 13, 2014 10:25 AM (MMC8r)

85 Wow. Scary stuff. Do you like your tyranny straight up or with a dash of bitters?

All tyranny is served with bitters.

I just wanna know if they'd like a lead chaser or not.

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (MPIX5)

86 Just words, wingnutz. Don't get all excited. No way in hell I'd embarrass His Historicalness with a negative ruling.

His Historicalness? I like it.

Posted by: Retread at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (G+w7R)

87 "I remember when she was just a little girl."

Posted by: Things That Vic Said at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (aDwsi)

88 You would think a Constitutional Scholar would know better? The alternative is almost too frightening to contemplate. What if we were lied to and he wasn't a Constitutional Scholar? I mean, not even on the Constitutional Honor Roll for a quarter?

Posted by: t-bird at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (FcR7P)

89 81 Yeah, I remember when Verilli was portrayed as"having a bad day" when he was arguing for Zerocare, too.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 13, 2014 02:25 PM (YmPwQ)

O-Care was going down until Roberts suddenly flipped at the last minute, for whatever reason.

Posted by: joncelli at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (RD7QR)

90 Hmm, the Supreme Court wary of the president claiming he has the power to order one of the other branches of government around? Funny they would be a little leery of that idea.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (hLRSq)

91 Hey baby, you must've been something before electricity.

Posted by: Al Czervik at January 13, 2014 10:26 AM (MMC8r)

92 In her defense, she was something before the Russo-Japanese War.

Posted by: B at January 13, 2014 10:27 AM (XyoGP)

93 You mean the Franco-Prussian War?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 13, 2014 10:27 AM (sA4/D)

94 At least Obama didn't throw down the "I am your Lord and Savior" argument. Roberts will find a way to rule in Il Douche's favor.

Posted by: Sharkman at January 13, 2014 10:28 AM (TM1p8)

95 The 30 Years War

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:28 AM (QupBk)

96 Hey baby, you must've been something before electricity.

Now I know why tigers eat their young.

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 13, 2014 10:28 AM (MPIX5)

97 It seems to me, the question before the court is this:

Do we have three separate, co-equal branches of government, each with the power to check the others, or do we not?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at January 13, 2014 10:29 AM (fwARV)

98 Her visage made it seem like a Hundred Year War.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 13, 2014 10:29 AM (sA4/D)

99 "Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab."

Obviously not a real shocker there. The only surprising thing about her is that she's apparently been a longtime BFF with Scalia.

Posted by: Jaws at January 13, 2014 10:29 AM (4I3Uo)

100 The Punic Wars.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 13, 2014 10:29 AM (c6N69)

101 Stephen G. Breyer that modern Senate-White House battles over nominations were a political problem, not a constitutional problem. ***** See that escape hatch right ^ there? Political question.

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:29 AM (RJMhd)

102 88 - Liar!! let's just take a look at his transcripts.... then won't YOU feel silly!

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:29 AM (rFjSX)

103 I mean, not even on the Constitutional Honor Roll for a quarter? Other than being a Harvard Law Review President (elected), what honors did Obama receive at Harvard? Do they publish an Honor Roll? He was either summa cum laude or magna cum laude, but Harvard grade inflation for minorities is legendary.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 13, 2014 10:30 AM (o4Xc4)

104 Do we have three separate, co-equal branches of government, each with the power to check the others, or do we not? We have a system where any two branches can trump the third, not where one can stump the others.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:30 AM (QupBk)

105

>>>if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most."

Ouchie. So, lynching is OK by this guy? For example, I mean. OTOH, seizing guns in Chicago in the absence of due process is cool, too, right? How about denying the right to vote to minorities, or whites, depending on which part of the country you're in? Cops planting evidence?

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:30 AM (3ZtZW)

106
"..... and Dolly Madison used to tell us kids the most WONDERFUL bedtime stories.....".

Posted by: Ruth Bader Ginsberg at January 13, 2014 10:30 AM (nELVU)

107 You mean the Franco-Prussian War? Agincourt.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 13, 2014 10:31 AM (CRyse)

108 She's someone's painting in the attic.

Posted by: B at January 13, 2014 10:31 AM (XyoGP)

109

Maybe they are smart enough to realize that giving the President authority to over-rule one co-equal branch will serve as precedent to over-rule the other co-equal branch of government.

Or they are racists. One or the other.

Posted by: Joe at January 13, 2014 10:31 AM (7pOq5)

110

By now this regime's NSA has probably got dirt on all of them. I'm not going to be making any predictions. I imagine all of them will be getting visits at 2am.

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 10:31 AM (lG8Uj)

111 I dunno I could be over-reading Breyer there but when in doubt- it's a weasel.

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:32 AM (RJMhd)

112 The Wars of the Roses.

That sounds like a nice war.

Posted by: eleven at January 13, 2014 10:32 AM (KXm42)

113 Do we have three separate, co-equal branches of government, each with the power to check the others, or do we not?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider

There is only one branch of government; Your Betters.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 13, 2014 10:32 AM (yZwfe)

114 He was either summa cum laude or magna cum laude, but Harvard grade inflation for minorities is legendary. Allegedly Magna, though that might have just been to avoid the embarrassment that no President of the Law Review had ever graduated without honors.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:32 AM (QupBk)

115 Come on, its a tax.

Posted by: Jean at January 13, 2014 10:33 AM (4JkHl)

116 Bader Ginsburg was never the same after that house landed on her sister and killed her.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 13, 2014 10:33 AM (8ZskC)

117 Do we have three separate, co-equal branches of government, each with the power to check the others, or do we not? Posted by: Washington Nearsider ------------- Only a racist h8ter would ask a question like that.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:34 AM (aDwsi)

118 111 By now this regime's NSA has probably got dirt on all of them. I'm not going to be making any predictions. I imagine all of them will be getting visits at 2am.

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 02:31 PM (lG8Uj)

Yeah, they got pictures of that thing with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Catherine the Great.

Posted by: joncelli at January 13, 2014 10:34 AM (RD7QR)

119 117 jean damn.... you beat me to it

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at January 13, 2014 10:34 AM (8v/hq)

120

>>>Maybe they are smart enough to realize that giving the President authority to over-rule one co-equal branch will serve as precedent to over-rule the other co-equal branch of government.

Once there, I think the military should assume co-equal status then over-rule the Executive.

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:34 AM (3ZtZW)

121 Ooo, Porsche revealed the new 911 Targa today. Looks pretty cool with the wraparound rear glass.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 13, 2014 10:35 AM (FEHds)

122 Allegedly Magna, though that might have just been to avoid the embarrassment that no President of the Law Review had ever graduated without honors. But totes no embarrassment that the Present of the Law Review never reviewed anything?

Posted by: rickb223 at January 13, 2014 10:35 AM (CRyse)

123 Commies don't recognize no stinkin constitution

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 10:35 AM (t3UFN)

124 106 >>>if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most." ******* What Doctrine of ______ is that?

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:35 AM (RJMhd)

125
but, yeah, "Feds Investigating Christie Over Sandy Aid"

#warmcockles

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:35 AM (gYIst)

126 Ho! We were pulling trains on RBG at the very beginning of recorded history.

She was old, even then.

Posted by: Three kings of Awan (Sumeria), ca. 2600 BC at January 13, 2014 10:35 AM (TM1p8)

127 Testing

Posted by: theo22 at January 13, 2014 10:36 AM (GwL31)

128 Ginsberg's first case was to unsuccessfully argue that the character in the Bible was based on her.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:36 AM (rFjSX)

129 The commie here in NYC who is the Mayor is already breaking laws and putting occupy wall street people in power

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 10:36 AM (t3UFN)

130 OT To chase away the images of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on some Minoan urn...

Ukraine Got Talent. Anastasia Sokolova. Bring me to life.
http://youtu.be/7uhTS4WqUe0

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 13, 2014 10:37 AM (sA4/D)

131 Don't read too much into the oral argument. Never too late for our side to fold. Posted by: duke at January 13, 2014 02:09 PM (d3clc) We don't have a side

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 13, 2014 10:37 AM (R8hU8)

132 Funny how the Supremes say its NOT OK to ban abortions after 20 weeks.... as it infringes on a Right... Yet somehow California can keep me from buying any Assault Rifle... and is trying to make us do background checks to buy ammunition...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 13, 2014 10:37 AM (lZBBB)

133 I've said it before and I'll say it again: constitution, schmonstitution!

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 13, 2014 10:37 AM (Dwehj)

134 Drudge reports a man is dead and a woman is missing in Chicago after jumping in the river to retrieve a dropped cell phone. My money is on it being an ObamaPhone.

Posted by: Buddha at January 13, 2014 10:37 AM (s/sIv)

135 127 but, yeah, "Feds Investigating Christie Over Sandy Aid" #warmcockles Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 02:35 PM (gYIst) ******* Jezzuz. Does he have grill marks on his ass yet? Answer me this Soothie-- why the hell didn't Hillary keep her powder dry on Christie? Are you buying the Maddow Theory?

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (RJMhd)

136 131 The commie here in NYC who is the Mayor is already breaking laws and putting occupy wall street people in power

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 02:36 PM (t3UFN)

You're surprised? Seriously, let them feel the consequences of their actions.

Posted by: joncelli at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (RD7QR)

137

>>>Ginsberg's first case was to unsuccessfully argue that the character in the Bible was based on her.

Job's wife?

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (3ZtZW)

138 Given the Legislative's expansive reading of the Commerce clause, and the new-found taxation power to force people to purchase any good or service, what limitations, if any, does the federal government have? Gabe?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (o4Xc4)

139 Ooo, Porsche revealed the new 911 Targa today. Looks pretty cool with the wraparound rear glass.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 13, 2014 02:35 PM (FEHds)

The new Corvette has some major league testicles as well.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (BZAd3)

140 Anna - Cripes! The lead-in ad was Flo, from Progressive. She seems to be putting on weight...

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (aDwsi)

141 Ruth Bader Ginsberg was my favorite Golden Girl.

Posted by: garrett at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (QYq5z)

142 The commie here in NYC who is the Mayor is already breaking laws and putting occupy wall street people in power

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 02:36 PM (t3UFN)

--------------------------------------------------

You were expecting something different?

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 10:38 AM (lG8Uj)

143
I'm not aware of the Maddow Theory. Aware me?

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:39 AM (gYIst)

144 I have no right to comment on Supreme Court rulings since I have been condemned by Justice Kennedy in his official majority opinion as foul bigot. I denounce myself.

Posted by: Traditional Marriage Supporter at January 13, 2014 10:39 AM (pginn)

145 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, huh.... I wonder how she would react if the a president started assuming he could issue Supreme Court decisions when the court is on vacay?

Posted by: MTF at January 13, 2014 10:39 AM (gmtFW)

146 That Flo chick must be one of the richest people in Hollywood by now.

I want to kill that fucking AFLAC duck. Just thought I'd share that.

Posted by: eleven at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (KXm42)

147 139 - Bah! My humor is too high brow for you people.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (rFjSX)

148 You were expecting something different? Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 02:38 PM (lG8Uj) Nope.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (t3UFN)

149 Flo and Progressive can KMA.

Posted by: Buddha at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (s/sIv)

150 a man is dead and a woman is missing in Chicago after jumping in the river to retrieve a dropped cell phone. My money is on it being an ObamaPhone

Don't know, but I guarantee you they voted for me.

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (Dwehj)

151 The commie here in NYC who is the Mayor is already breaking laws and putting occupy wall street people in power What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (0HooB)

152 Ginsberg's first case was to unsuccessfully argue that the character in the Bible was based on her. Job's wife? Cain's second cousin. Twice removed.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (CRyse)

153 mmm, duck

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (QupBk)

154

>>>I have been condemned by Justice Kennedy in his official majority opinion as foul bigot.

You should get one of those Reality TV shows. You can call it Cake Bigot.

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (3ZtZW)

155 Don't know, but I guarantee you they voted for me. Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 13, 2014 02:40 PM (Dwehj) And will continue to support the Dems.

Posted by: AMDG at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (t7OO0)

156 Sprit of the law guys. That part of the Constitution was intended for when Congress took MONTHS off between sessions. Not a couple weeks. The administration doesn't have a valid argument that the lack of an assembled body to approve the appointments in a timely manner necessitated the direct appointment without confirmation.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at January 13, 2014 10:40 AM (0q2P7)

157 on he other hand, if the Sup Ct says "no" to these dubious recess appointments, what's there to stop Reid and the Dems from declaring a recess whenever Barky needs one? Is that possible?

Posted by: Mallfly at January 13, 2014 10:41 AM (bJm7W)

158

"He [U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.] seemed to startle even some of the more liberal judges when he said that, if it was a contest between historical practice and the words of the Constitution, practice should count the most."

Funny how that doesn't seem to matter when it comes to gay marriage.

Posted by: Joe at January 13, 2014 10:41 AM (7pOq5)

159 Probably be a good day to listen to Levin's show. He always does a great job covering the court.

Posted by: garrett at January 13, 2014 10:41 AM (QYq5z)

160 Ok Ace Listen Up I use the Amazon portal when I remember. How about another way for you to make money? Imagine- A T Shirt with on the front "Then the dirty little (or yellow) coward on the back "shot the sequestration in the back with the choice of your congressman or senator who voted for the Dec budget deal that busted the sequestration. I'd buy one with that yellow dog Culberson on the back.

Posted by: theo22 at January 13, 2014 10:42 AM (GwL31)

161

>>>Bah! My humor is too high brow for you people.

Cmon.... Job's wife had all the great advice. "Curse God and Die" she said

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:42 AM (3ZtZW)

162 The lead-in ad was Flo, from Progressive. She seems to be putting on weight...

It's all going to that gigundous forehead of hers.

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 13, 2014 10:42 AM (Dwehj)

163 I am sure that this is above, but there are a whole lot of comments. Didn't the Senate consider itself always in session when GWB was President to PREVENT him from using this same power that Obama claims as his God given right via practice, Constitution be damned?

Posted by: TimothyJ at January 13, 2014 10:42 AM (ep2io)

164 Until Congress is willing to defend itself from the usurpations of the President, the President will continue to usurp.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 13, 2014 10:42 AM (pginn)

165 a picture and name on back

Posted by: theo22 at January 13, 2014 10:42 AM (GwL31)

166 I want to kill that fucking AFLAC duck. Just thought I'd share that. It was funny when it was still Gilbert Gottfried.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:43 AM (PYAXX)

167 157, I was about to say "those two won't be voting democrat any more," but then realized this is Chicago we're talking about.

Posted by: Buddha at January 13, 2014 10:43 AM (s/sIv)

168 Looks like Steven Crowder got a full-time gig:

@scrowder

I'll be co-hosting from 12:00-3:00 PST with @Johnnydontlike on KABC today. Guests & your calls! Tune in for ruckus!

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 13, 2014 10:44 AM (yZwfe)

169 Imagine- A T Shirt with on the front #TwoWeeks.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:44 AM (PYAXX)

170 If you like your session, you can keep your session.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 13, 2014 10:44 AM (XxAYS)

171 145 I'm not aware of the Maddow Theory. Aware me? Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 02:39 PM (gYIst) **** Someone is trying to talk me into so...I can't really cover it well-- it goes something like it is staffers in the Court leaking and it is payback for a State Supreme Court appointment in Jersey. Something like that. Ugh--as soon as I heard Maddow--I blanked out to tell you the truth--so the deets I have could be off. But--I do kind of hold to that motto-- all politics is local. And it would explain why they are doing Christie in now. Seems to me they should have kept their powder dry on him if it was the Hillary camp.

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:44 AM (RJMhd)

172
Well, so much for Bing being a right-leaning alternative to Google.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:44 AM (gYIst)

173 T-Shirt sales might put Ace into a higher tax bracket.

Posted by: garrett at January 13, 2014 10:44 AM (QYq5z)

174

I wonder how she would react if the a president started assuming he could issue Supreme Court decisions when the court is on vacay?

I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet, but when I saw that everyone but Ginsberg was hammering the DOJ, I figured that this was what was on their minds.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (eGmvn)

175 Veni vidi vicfuku

Posted by: Julius Obama at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (iUneG)

176 T-Shirt sales might put Ace into a higher tax bracket.

Also, Big Underwear wouldn't just sit back and do nothing.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (8ZskC)

177 Sprit of the law guys. That part of the Constitution was intended for when Congress took MONTHS off between sessions. Not a couple weeks. ---------------- Didn't Clinton do the same thing with Bill Lan Lee? Expect the same for the guy O'Blamer has up now for the same job.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (aDwsi)

178 on he other hand, if the Sup Ct says "no" to these dubious recess appointments, what's there to stop Reid and the Dems from declaring a recess whenever Barky needs one? Is that possible?

Posted by: Mallfly at January 13, 2014 02:41 PM (bJm7W)

-------------------------------------------

I don't know. But I figure that during these burning times, anything is possible.

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (lG8Uj)

179 Here's my utter WAG: the Court will rule the appointments were improper but will refuse to nullify the actions taken by the NLRB during that time because reasons.
===========
you know what those reasons will be, right?

Something along the lines of "well, we can't be sure that had the appointments not been made, that the board wouldn't have reached the same decision anyway."

You know, the "let us pretend there is no harm here under the rule we just made up so we can get what we want."

The same fine legal reasoning that underlies rational basis vs. strict scrutiny.

Oh and standing, love that: "We will pretend that there is nothing we can do because you are not specifically damaged. This time. But, bring us a civil rights case or something we like and we will pretend all sorts of reasons for standing."

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (VjL9S)

180 Still, Clinton aides exulted in schadenfreude when their enemies faltered. Years later they would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them.

Â“Bill Richardson: investigated;
John Edwards: disgraced by scandal;
Chris Dodd: stepped down;
Â“Ted Kennedy,Â” Â“dead;Â”

Posted by: Robert Kennedy's ghost at January 13, 2014 10:45 AM (e8kgV)

181 T-Shirt sales might put Ace into a higher tax bracket. I think Ace would be happy just to make it into a tax bracket.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (QupBk)

182 Progressive Flo is getting fat but have you seen who else got fat? Leah Remini. Saw her in some commercial. I used to think she was so hot. What a porker she turned into.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (7ObY1)

183 Oral arguments should be banned .

Posted by: Virginia State Senator at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (m2CN7)

184 It was a penalty, then a tax, then a shared responsibility fee.
Obama decided the Senate was in recess when it wasn't.
Our Benghazi consulate was attacked on 9-11 because of a movie, and AQ as not involved.
Obamacare is the law of the land that shall bend for no one, except for his 14 or so on-the-fly amendments to it (but don't tell those pesky nuns in Denver). And he just keeps pulling illegal stuff like this.

Who are you going to believe - Obama and the MSM or your lying eyes?

Words have no fixed meaning to Obama. Who knows, maybe one morning he'll wake up (but not too early) and declare the sky green or rename the days of the week after himself or decide that really, he'll just stick around as president for life, m'kay?

Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (POpqt)

185 Roberts will rule that it's a tax and the senate lacks standing to determine when they are in recess.

Posted by: Buzzion at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (nA8mW)

186
Politically, it is a shrewd tactic to knock down an potential opponent when he's riding high.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (gYIst)

187 This behavior is characteristic of an only child.

But usually by the time they've reached puberty, somebody has pounded a bit of good sense into their petulant little heads.

Posted by: Fritz at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (UzPAd)

188 If you catch them in the right light, improper recess appointments look amazingly similar to a tax.

Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts, Still Growing In Office at January 13, 2014 10:46 AM (8ZskC)

189

>>>Well, so much for Bing being a right-leaning alternative to Google.

Anything not explicitly rightwing becomes leftwing

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:47 AM (3ZtZW)

190 I was about to say "those two won't be voting democrat any more," but then realized this is Chicago we're talking about. Posted by: Buddha --------------- Possible thread winner.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:47 AM (aDwsi)

191 Someone call John Kerry - we found his chin attached to Flo's headband.

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 13, 2014 10:47 AM (Dwehj)

192 Loved the fact that the case made by the Senate Republicans was in fact argued by Miguel Estrada, who was kept from a position in the Bush White House by Sen Reid keeping the Senate active through normal recess periods.

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at January 13, 2014 10:47 AM (UeVaP)

193 When's recess? I call dibs on the monkey bars!

Posted by: Joey Biden at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (FcR7P)

194 This is all kinda moot now since Dirty Harry nuked the filibuster for appointees, but it would still be nice to see King Barry get slapped down on this, especially by his own Court appointees. And it will be very helpful if Republicans win back the Senate next year. Otherwise I can see the Senate simply refusing to recess at all.

Posted by: rockmom at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (Q4elb)

195 If you catch them in the right light , improper recess appointments look amazingly similar to a tax. Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts --------- AKA , 'penumbra'

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (aDwsi)

196 What a porker she turned into.

She was so hot but then it turned out she was a Scientologist. Then she assploded.

Drat.

Posted by: eleven at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (KXm42)

197 163 - That's why she was unsuccessful, because she is so UNLIKE the biblical Ruth.... nevermind. If you gotta explain the joke...

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (rFjSX)

198 "No, no wait. Let me explain. Obama wants to appoint these guys, but the senate won't let him. So, see, Obama gets to appoint them." That is, more or less, the Obama administration's position.

Posted by: Kirk's Gorn at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (/EkKm)

199 Words have no fixed meaning to Obama. Who knows, maybe one morning he'll wake up (but not too early) and declare the sky green or rename the days of the week after himself or decide that really, he'll just stick around as president for life, m'kay? We should be glad TFG doesn't own a horse...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (0HooB)

200 JAN 9, 2014 11:15PM ET / POLITICS Is Chris Christie's Supreme Court War With Democrats Behind Bridgeghazi? SARA MORRISON [...] Well, Rachel Maddow posited a new theory -- and it is just a theory -- on her show tonight: that a long-running feud between Christie and state senate Democrats about Supreme Court justice appointments may have been the real reason for Bridgeghazi (you'll want to skip to 11:30 -- before that, it's just Maddow over-explaining Bridgeghazi several times): [...] So we've got Christie refusing to renominate a Democratically-appointed Supreme Court justice to a lifetime tenure in 2010 in an unprecedented move. State senate Democrats were outraged and threatened to refuse to confirm any of Christie's future Supreme Court appointments. For the most part, they've stuck to their guns. Things have been tense. They still are, actually -- just a few days ago, Christie had to withdraw yet another nominee after Democrats refused to confirm him. The New Jersey Supreme Court has only five justices right now. It's supposed to have seven. On August 12 of last year, Christie announced that he would not renominate another Supreme Court justice -- this time, he said, it was because he didn't want Helen Hoens (who is married to a Christie staffer) to face Senate Democrats who he said would destroy her reputation. "I was not going to let her loose to the animals," Christie said. Later, he added: "What the ramifications would be for that going forward, [Senate Democrats] should have thought about before opening their mouths." The very next morning, Bridget Anne Kelly emailed David Wildstein with "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." As Maddow points out, Fort Lee's senator is Loretta Weinberg. She's a Democrat and she's also the Senate majority leader. Oh, and Christie once urged reporters to "take a bat to" her back in 2011, so there's no love lost between them. (Thewire.com)

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:48 AM (RJMhd)

201 I'm a steamroller, baby, Wanna roll all over you

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 13, 2014 10:49 AM (DrC22)

202 We should be glad TFG doesn't own a horse... **pricks ears up**

Posted by: John Kerry at January 13, 2014 10:50 AM (QupBk)

203 Who knows, maybe one morning he'll wake up (but not too early) and declare the sky green or rename the days of the week after himself

I love it when the trees begin changing color in Baracktember.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 13, 2014 10:50 AM (FEHds)

204 Just for the record, Progressive Insurance has that name for a reason, and a portion of their profits go straight to our policital opponents.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 13, 2014 10:50 AM (eGmvn)

205 That fat bastard Francesa is still sucking A-Rod's cock on WFAN. What an asshole

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 10:50 AM (t3UFN)

206 Yeah, they got pictures of that thing with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Catherine the Great.

Will you people never let me live that down?

Posted by: Zombie Catherine the Great at January 13, 2014 10:50 AM (wSrLR)

207 The question at stake is did the Framers intend to give the President an implicit "pocket veto" on nominations, or did they simply intend to provide a way for the government to continue to function in the short-term in an era where, in historical memory, legislatures only met for a few months of the year, and where it took weeks for both persons and information to cross from one-end of the new nation to the other, and thus is might be up to a year before a candidate could be considered absent recess appointment? And that the provisional nature of the appointment was clear in the "expiration of next session" clause? In short, recesses were imagined to be for the majority of a year, not a week. Was the recess appointment truly intended to be a pocket veto, an end-around? I say no. Now, Father Time has not necessarily passed this clause by, but the full-time, year-round Congress has. Compared to olden days, the Senate never truly *recesses*. If we ever go back to a part-time Congress, we will need the recess appointment more, but that is not something on the horizon. Further...If the President can appoint during recesses (as he can), and if he determines when the recesses are (as he cannot), then what in the Constitution can keep him from continually reappointing the same individual upon expiration of his commission (which happens during the recess at the end of the next session), and thus making the advice and consent clause a nullity? A perpetual end-around. The only way the Senate could fight this would be to never recess---but if the President can unilaterally say the Senate is in recess, and if a recess can also be twisted to said to be the end of a session..... What then *Constitutionally* prevents the President from basically never needing to go to the Senate again if the Supreme Court allows the President to declare when the Senate is in recess? Nothing that I see, thus "advice and consent" becomes a nullity. And can any *truly* legitimate Supreme Court decison have the functional effect of making part of the Constitution a nullity? No. So the Senate must be able to decide when it is in recess. Finally, if we are to follow the Obama lead and split hairs on definition of recess, what is to stop the Senate from doing the same on definition of "session"? If modern recesses are essentially only a few weeks long at best--or a week, as I believe was the case here--what is to stop the Senate from reconvening a week or so after the recess appointment, from then adjourning for one minute one minute into the reconvening, and then reconvene again, and thus from having ending "the next session", and thus from having ended the commission of the recess appointment? Nothing Constitutional that I can see, if we give to the goose that which we give to gander, thus only brute force of some kind (perhaps popular opinion, perhaps arms, but not something written on paper). And, as discussed above, what is to also prevent the President from saying the Senate is in recess, and also at end of session, and then reappointing the man indefinitely? Nothing but brute force of some kind. It should thus be clear that we sheer away from being a Banana Republic, where brute power (military or political demagoguery), and not laws and charters on paper, rule, only if the liberal justices of the Supreme Court start showing more fidelity to parchment and less to party. Time is running out for them to finally and decisively choose.

Posted by: Logicus at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (jFOqG)

208 >>> Until Congress is willing to defend itself from the usurpations of the President, the President will continue to usurp.

Agreed, he should have been impeached and censured for that bullshit. Which is of course a slap on the wrist. They couldn't even do that.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (0q2P7)

209

@198 She was so hot but then it turned out she was a Scientologist. Then she assploded.

--------------

Except that she's not a Scientologist anymore. So does that mean that she's gonna be hot again?

Posted by: junior at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (UWFpX)

210 **pricks ears up** Posted by: John Kerry ---------------- LMAO

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (aDwsi)

211 #186 Words have no fixed meaning to Obama. Who knows, maybe one morning he'll wake up (but not too early) and declare the sky green or rename the days of the week after himself or decide that really, he'll just stick around as president for life, m'kay? Days of the week named after old white gods are rayciss anyway.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (7ObY1)

212 Who knows, maybe one morning he'll wake up (but not too early) and declare the sky green or rename the days of the week after himself All the cool Emperors do it.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (PYAXX)

213 ItÂ’s the "Circumpolar Vortex" not the "Polar Vortex."

Posted by: Gimme Some Truth -- John Lennon at January 13, 2014 10:51 AM (e8kgV)

214

>>>"No, no wait. Let me explain. Obama wants to appoint these guys, but the senate won't let him. So, see, Obama gets to appoint them." That is, more or less, the Obama administration's position.

3 branches == roshambo, basically

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 10:52 AM (3ZtZW)

215 As I have mentioned before, Ace once sold t-shirts. I bought one. He sent me two. That's why Ace doesn't sell t-shirts anymore. Marketing is NOT his strong suit.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:52 AM (rFjSX)

216
Well, seeing as how it comes from Maddow, an ignoramus and a liar, I'll have to dismiss it.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:52 AM (gYIst)

217 189 This behavior is characteristic of an only child. But usually by the time they've reached puberty, somebody has pounded a bit of good sense into their petulant little heads. Posted by: Fritz at January 13, 2014 02:46 PM (UzPAd) But he's not an only child. His father apparently had quite a few children. And I believe he has a half sister from his mother. He's an abandoned child. Left to his grandparents who spoiled him and let him hang out with a communist pedophile.

Posted by: Buzzion at January 13, 2014 10:52 AM (nA8mW)

218 159 on he other hand, if the Sup Ct says "no" to these dubious recess appointments, what's there to stop Reid and the Dems from declaring a recess whenever Barky needs one? Is that possible?
========
The House.

The Senate can't declare a recess unless the House has done so first.

And the House refused to do so back then.

That is the most brazen part about this---they seek to limit the power of the House; the part spelled out even more clearly than the recess clause they're trying to muddy up.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 13, 2014 10:52 AM (VjL9S)

219

I want to kill that fucking AFLAC duck. Just thought I'd share that.

All the new-duck-audition ads do is remind me what twats Aflac were for firing Gilbert Gottfried in the first place.

I mean, you hire Gilbert Gottfriend and he makes Gilbert Gottfried jokes, and you're shocked, shocked!

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 13, 2014 10:53 AM (A0sHn)

220

@196This is all kinda moot now since Dirty Harry nuked the filibuster for appointees, but it would still be nice to see King Barry get slapped down on this, especially by his own Court appointees. And it will be very helpful if Republicans win back the Senate next year. Otherwise I can see the Senate simply refusing to recess at all.

-------------------

I suspect that if Republicans win the Senate, Reid will suddenly realize that the Nuclear Option is a Bad Thing(tm), and "fix" this problem before the new senators take their seats. Republicans will, of course, be able to undo Reid's "fix", but only if people like McCain decide not to interfere. And they'll get tons of bad press calling them hypocrites, etc...

Posted by: junior at January 13, 2014 10:53 AM (UWFpX)

221 Well, crap. That whole "staying up too late, and THEN not actually being able to sleep" thing is catching up with me. I'm getting a migraine. I put the over/under before I give in and leave at 1 hour.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:54 AM (PYAXX)

222 I guess this year the SCOTUS will rule Obama's mic be cut off if he utters bad things about the court during the State of the Union address/

Posted by: Waldo at January 13, 2014 10:54 AM (e8kgV)

223
yeah, so this nobody Janet Yellin is now a "great woman in history" based solely on her appointment by a president looking to take personal credit to pad his legacy

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:54 AM (gYIst)

224 I want to kill that fucking AFLAC duck. Just thought I'd share that. Usually agree, but I do like that new Mafia-themed one with Frank Vincent (Billy Batts from Goodfellas and Phil Leotardo from The Sopranos.)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 13, 2014 10:54 AM (7ObY1)

225 Nice illegally adopted Irish kids you got there, Justice Roberts. Shame if anything happened to that little arrangement.

Posted by: Vinnie and Guido at January 13, 2014 10:54 AM (vgIRn)

226 >>This behavior is characteristic of a DAMAGED child.

FIFY.
He's a third generation communist raised by a village instead of a stable set of parents.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 13, 2014 10:55 AM (POpqt)

227

"Roberts also sought to explore how far the Senate could go to frustrate a president over recess appointments, wondering if it could simply decide never to take a recess."

Well, since the recess appoitnment wasn't allowed for the purpose of frustrating anyone, but because when the Senate was in recess it could take weeks to recall them and have them exercise their "advice and consent", Roberts' question would seem to be moot. Whether it takes a recess is irrelevant to the issue of recess appointments (and TOTALLY within the purview of the Senate, itself) which were designed to be emergency procedures, not a political ploy. This is possibly another sign of Roberts' non-constitutionalist orientation.

Posted by: GWB at January 13, 2014 10:55 AM (zFh/A)

228 Style guide memo: If you ain't the proprietor of this weblog, writing a movie review, your long posts will not get read.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 10:55 AM (rFjSX)

229 218 Well, seeing as how it comes from Maddow, an ignoramus and a liar, I'll have to dismiss it. Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 02:52 PM (gYIst) ****** Ya--that's kind of what my brain did. Probably providing cover for Hillary or at least they want the two-fer. The texts were part of sealed documents in another court case IIRC

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 10:56 AM (RJMhd)

230 I've had my eye on that duck for some while....

Posted by: Phil Robertson's Unknown Brother at January 13, 2014 10:56 AM (aDwsi)

231

You know, if Obama can appoint people when the senate is not in recess, maybe he can just fire supreme court justices that displease him.....? I mean, won't their ruling against him count as intransigence? And isn't that the new standard for determining the president's powers?

Posted by: Kirk's Gorn at January 13, 2014 10:56 AM (/EkKm)

232

@225
yeah, so this nobody Janet Yellin is now a "great woman in history" based solely on her appointment by a president looking to take personal credit to pad his legacy

------------------

Just wait until Inigo asks her to hand over the gate key (or Fezzik will tear her arms off). They won't be so ecstatic about her then!

Posted by: junior at January 13, 2014 10:56 AM (UWFpX)

233 222 @196This is all kinda moot now since Dirty Harry nuked the filibuster for appointees, but it would still be nice to see King Barry get slapped down on this, especially by his own Court appointees. And it will be very helpful if Republicans win back the Senate next year. Otherwise I can see the Senate simply refusing to recess at all. ------------------- I suspect that if Republicans win the Senate, Reid will suddenly realize that the Nuclear Option is a Bad Thing(tm), and "fix" this problem before the new senators take their seats. Republicans will, of course, be able to undo Reid's "fix", but only if people like McCain decide not to interfere. And they'll get tons of bad press calling them hypocrites, etc... Posted by: junior at January 13, 2014 02:53 PM (UWFpX) Like it matters? Remember Bolton had to be done as a recess appointment and could not become the permanent ambassador to the UN not because of the democrats but because of shit headed republicans like voinovich.

Posted by: Buzzion at January 13, 2014 10:57 AM (nA8mW)

234 230 Style guide memo: If you ain't the proprietor of this weblog, writing a movie review, your long posts will not get read.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 13, 2014 02:55 PM (rFjSX)

Also if you're new I won't read a long comment. You got to build up to dat yo.

Posted by: eleven at January 13, 2014 10:57 AM (KXm42)

235 FIRE Supremes who commit intransigence against ME? Fuck that. I'll feed 'em to the dogs. After I eat one of the dogs.

Posted by: President Barack Obama at January 13, 2014 10:57 AM (7ObY1)

236 Flo was never hawt. Not even in the wildest stretch of the imagination.

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at January 13, 2014 10:57 AM (Dwehj)

237 but because of shit headed republicans like voinovich. May he weep in peace.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 10:58 AM (QupBk)

238
We have 3 years left to suffer this fool obama.

We also have the chance, if we'd just get our shit together, to make it a very easy last two years.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 10:58 AM (gYIst)

239 You'd think it might occur to the SCOTUS justices that Obama could just as easily decide to appoint new justices without Senate approval while "on recess." Maybe self preservation is the only thing left that people in DC can be relied upon to act.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 13, 2014 10:58 AM (POpqt)

240

Â“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.Â”

The JEF must have been sick when his Constitution class covered Madison.

Posted by: Icedog at January 13, 2014 10:58 AM (8VPPr)

241 @225
yeah, so this nobody Janet Yellin is now a "great woman in history" based solely on her appointment by a president looking to take personal credit to pad his legacy

She'll get the lovely job of winding up the stimulus. That will be her legacy.

Posted by: joncelli at January 13, 2014 10:59 AM (RD7QR)

242 Nood Hillary.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 13, 2014 10:59 AM (PYAXX)

243 What happens if Obama chooses to defy the Supreme Court?

What happens to all those NLRB rulings if the appointment is tossed? All those rulings then have to be litigated, each one separately, taking years, and millions of lawyerly man hours of billable time?

I think I see a problem.

Posted by: Livingstun Gullsburn at January 13, 2014 10:59 AM (7X0F2)

244 Flo was never hawt. Not even in the wildest stretch of the imagination. She does anal.

Posted by: The Gecko at January 13, 2014 10:59 AM (QupBk)

245 "The Senate can't declare a recess unless the House has done so first.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 13, 2014 02:52 PM (VjL9S)"

Oops, forgot that part - it is "...TOTALLY within the purview of the House and the Senate..."

Posted by: GWB at January 13, 2014 10:59 AM (Yv2t4)

246 Oh the Supremes might fold up like a cheap suitcase on this one. And then again they may not. But for me---I'm proud to be an "intransigent" SOB where President Numb Nuts is concerned.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at January 13, 2014 11:00 AM (wdHk6)

247

145
I'm not aware of the Maddow Theory. Aware me?
Posted by: soothsayer at January 13, 2014 02:39 PM (gYIst)

Maddow came up with this idea that the payback was to state senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, who represents Fort Lee and is one of the more nutty and vocal moonbats in the state Senate. She made some noise about Christie refusing to reappoint the only black Justice on the state Supreme Court and led an effort to defeat another Christie nominee in 2010. The day before Bridget Kelly sent the email saying "time for a traffic jam in Ft. Lee," Christie pulled a nomination that Democrats had already agreed to. Kelly's main job was handling legislative affairs for Christie.

It's a load of crap. But it serves Maddow's purpose because it enabled her to get across to the progs to watch MSNBC that (a) one of Christie's main political opponents is a WOMAN, and (b) that Christie didn't reappoint a judge who was BLACK. IOW, Christie is a racist and sexist.

Posted by: rockmom at January 13, 2014 11:00 AM (Q4elb)

248

OT, becoz its way long in the thread:

What's the youngest you've taken a kid camping? Any suggestions re: sleeping bags and whatnot? BabyboyBigby is still too young for it, I think, but thinking ahead.

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 11:01 AM (3ZtZW)

249 Re 205: Barracus can do anything he wants with the days of the week and 10 of the 12 months but he better leave July and August alone or he'll be answering to us.

Posted by: The Original Caesars at January 13, 2014 11:01 AM (iUneG)

250 Days of the week named after old white gods are rayciss anyway. Posted by: BlueStateRebel Out: Days of the week named after old white gods. In: Days of the week named after half white gods.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 13, 2014 11:02 AM (CRyse)

251 What's the youngest you've taken a kid camping? There is never a 'too young' to take a boy camping.

Posted by: Harry Reid at January 13, 2014 11:04 AM (QYq5z)

252

In: Days of the week named after half white gods.

Out: "The Monday Blues"

In: "The Obama Blues"

Posted by: Icedog at January 13, 2014 11:06 AM (GYTqM)

253 OT, becoz its way long in the thread:

What's the youngest you've taken a kid camping? Any suggestions re: sleeping bags and whatnot? BabyboyBigby is still too young for it, I think, but thinking ahead.

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014

I took Nerada Jr when he was six. No problems.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 13, 2014 11:07 AM (eGmvn)

254 Logicus Great argument seems like Verilli's response is-- "But in practice-- dude."

Posted by: Hawaii at January 13, 2014 11:08 AM (RJMhd)

255 What's the youngest you've taken a kid camping? Barely toddling. Are you talking winter? Or summer?

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 11:09 AM (QupBk)

256 Here's my utter WAG: the Court will rule the appointments were improper but will refuse to nullify the actions taken by the NLRB during that time because reasons. Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD I'd love to hear the WH strategy meeting when Podesta tells the JEF that he is under no obligation to abide by the SC because: Precedent! Andy Jackson! FDR under siege! Besides, it's already a law!

Posted by: Daybrother at January 13, 2014 11:09 AM (cQ2+g)

257

What's the youngest you've taken a kid camping?

The youngest Bandersnatch was 3 when we did our first week-long canoe camping trip. The couple we went with had taken theirs as babies.

Called them "pamper campers".

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 13, 2014 11:11 AM (A0sHn)

258 I'd love to hear the WH strategy meeting when Podesta tells the JEF that he is under no obligation to abide by the SC because: Precedent! Andy Jackson! FDR under siege! Besides, it's already a law!

Posted by: Daybrother at January 13, 2014 03:09 PM (cQ2+g)

----------------------------------------

I have every reason to believe that if the SCOTUS rules against him nothing will change. He'll ignore it. I mean, please, who's in DC now that's going to call him on it?

Posted by: Soona at January 13, 2014 11:14 AM (lG8Uj)

259 The JEF must have been sick when his Constitution class covered Madison. Posted by: Icedog The JEF only lectured on the Constitution's defects. He didn't cover the mostly White guys that wrote it based on thousands of years of human History and hundreds of years of Government and Law other than "collectively they were not as smart as me".

Posted by: Daybrother at January 13, 2014 11:15 AM (jCThI)

260 Ruth Bader, back in the day at, get this, Cornell: http://tinyurl.com/ad7wd2q

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 13, 2014 11:19 AM (xq1UY)

261 Supreme Court rebuffs Administration claims based on clear language of Constitution and three throws of I-Ching sticks, but mostly clear language...

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 13, 2014 11:21 AM (xq1UY)

262

>>>Barely toddling. Are you talking winter? Or summer?

Sorry, walked away. Summer

Posted by: Bigby's Oven Mitts at January 13, 2014 11:21 AM (3ZtZW)

263 The fat bastard francesa just can't stop defending a-rod? must be getting a big fat paycheck by a-rod and a blow job

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 13, 2014 11:27 AM (t3UFN)

264 Ruthy Ginsberg! I remember her! Took her to see this flying contraption a couple of brothers named Wright had put together. She really liked it 'cause she blew me later after they let her sit in the thing.

Posted by: Abe Vigoda at January 13, 2014 11:31 AM (fkYmC)

265 "Ginsberg" is a Scandi name, isn't it?

Posted by: Achmed at January 13, 2014 11:34 AM (qfNFY)

266 Summer Then nothing to it. Put them on a blanket between the two of you for the night. During the day, you're never going to let a little one be out of your sight anyway, so camping isn't anything special.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 11:35 AM (QupBk)

267 And the novelty of camping seems to overtax their little brains so they sleep really well. Better even than at home.

Posted by: toby928© at January 13, 2014 11:40 AM (QupBk)

268

Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to support the Administration's power grab.

So Roberts is, naturally, going to side with her. I don't care what way he seems to be leaning based on his questions. I will never trust the man again.

Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at January 13, 2014 12:03 PM (+H/iL)

269 At the last second Justice Roberts will declare the recess appointments a tax, so it's all good.

Posted by: enkidu at January 13, 2014 03:14 PM (Wcbt8)

270 This from my "taxed" brain

The Supremes are ready to vote
On Obama's race to promote
Like-minded believers
Those well-known deceivers
Upon whom he happily dotes

Posted by: nannieboobot at January 13, 2014 07:49 PM (CUiZA)

271 Unmentioned in ALL the news reports on this: Not all of these 'recess' appointments were made during "pro-forma" sessions. At least one was made on a day when the Senate had a quorum and voted on legislation.

Posted by: Aarradin at January 14, 2014 03:49 AM (4T3FG)

272 From recent experience, I think we should view the judicial logic, precedence, and oral arguments, form what appears to be their tendency and the obvious conclusion, then expect the exact opposite.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 14, 2014 07:28 AM (zfY+H)

273 l'etat c'est moi The declaration that Ushered in the tumbrels and Madame guillotine

Posted by: I'd rather be surfin at January 15, 2014 06:32 PM (xZ19P)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

207kb generated in CPU 0.2047, elapsed 0.337 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2883 seconds, 401 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.