It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
It'd be cool if he was just honest about it and said hey look there's no way in hell we're gonna get another conservative Justice right now so we want to wait until we might be able to.
But I suppose that's too direct.
originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: dawnstar
that is an aspect of this people aren't paying attention to as much as they should and it will hurt both sides of the isle ,from the sisters as you mentioned to a possible Texas lower court end run on roe v wade (which would be terrible) has any one done a thread to figure out exactly how many cases are now in limbo or which could have unforseen outcomes for each party?
The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the president's power to temporarily appoint individuals to government posts, delivering a blow to President Barack Obama and altering the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the Court. The justices held that the Constitution does not permit the president to appointment people to government positions without Senate approval when the chamber is in a pro forma session -- when it gavels in and out once every three days to fulfill a constitutional requirement but does not conduct business. "For purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business," Breyer wrote, observing that the Senate does not define pro forma as a recess. "[W]e conclude that we must give great weight to the Senate’s own determination of when it is and when it is not in session. But our deference to the Senate cannot be absolute." The majority opinion was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The ruling was relatively narrow and could have been much worse for the Obama administration. The other four justices wanted to go further in curtailing the recess appointment power. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the outcome but saying they'd further restrict the president's authority to filling vacancies that arise only during the recess in question. (The majority ruling allows the president to fill slots during a recess regardless of when they were vacated.) "The real tragedy of today’s decision is not simply the abolition of the Constitution’s limits on the recess appointment power and the substitution of a novel frame work invented by this Court," Scalia wrote. "It is the damage done to our separation-of-powers jurisprudence more generally."
the time link explains how bolth sides have tried to use the same tricks before
The setback for President Obama is unlikely to stem the increasing political debate over the reach of executive power More Ted Cruz Says He Will Filibuster Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination Antonin Scalia’s Open Supreme Court Seat Could Set Record For Vacancy Why the Fight to Replace Antonin Scalia Will Be Ugly Handing a victory to those who fear the executive branch has overreached in recent years, the Supreme Court has reined in the President’s power to appoint officers of the government when Congress is in recess. Weighing competing clauses of the constitution, the justices ruled Thursday that the President cannot circumvent the framers’ requirement that he seek the Senate’s advice and consent on executive branch appointments if Senators are only formally in recess for three days. The ruling undermines hundreds of decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 and for half of 2013, when the board comprised unconfirmed recess appointees. Those decisions will be revisited by the board that has since been confirmed by the Senate. Nominally, the ruling is a win for Republicans who have made Obama’s use of presidential power a central plank of their mid-term election strategy. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican former chair of the Senate Judiciary committee applauded “the Court’s willingness to stand up to President Obama’s flagrantly unconstitutional power grab,” while House Speaker John Boehner called the ruling a “victory for the Constitution, and against President Obama’s aggressive overreach.” In fact, over the years, Republicans presidents have used recess appointments as often as Democrats. In 2013, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found that Ronald Reagan had made 232 recess appointments, Bill Clinton had made 139, and George W. Bush had made 171. As of Jan. 2013, Obama had made 32. In that light, the ultimate effect of the Court’s ruling will be a slight shift in power to Congress from the executive branch. Paradoxically, in recent years, Democrats have responded to Republican efforts to block Obama’s appointments by changing Senate rules to streamline the confirmation process. Last fall, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid forced through an ad hoc rule change effectively doing away with filibusters of all presidential appointments, except Supreme Court nominees—a dramatic move that curtailed the Senate minority’s ability to block presidential priorities. Reid said Thursday that thanks to that rule change, “today’s [Supreme Court] ruling will have no effect on our ability to continue ensuring that qualified nominees receive an up-or-down vote.”
so all 9 justices were in agreement
The Supreme Court on Thursday modestly curtailed presidents’ power to unilaterally appoint officials while the Senate is in recess. In a defeat for President Barack Obama, and others who will follow him into the White House, the court unanimously ruled that Obama improperly appointed two members to the National Labor Relations Board during an ultra-brief Senate recess. “Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the (Recess Appointments) Clause,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue.” In a separate decision Thursday, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that establishes a buffer zone around abortion clinics. The court still has a key case yet to decide before justices start their summer recess, with a decision pending on whether corporations can claim religious exemptions from the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. The recess appointment decision issued Thursday has been among the court’s most highly anticipated, because of its potential to tilt the balance of power between Congress and the White House. Citing “historical practice,” Breyer said that “a recess of more than three days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short” to allow the president to make a recess appointment. “We add the word ‘presumptively’ to leave open the possibility that some very unusual circumstance—a national catastrophe, for instance, that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response—could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break,” Breyer noted. At the same time, the court’s ruling was narrower than some conservatives had hoped for. Justices stressed that presidents retain authority to appoint officials during longer recesses, and they rejected arguments that would have further limited the vacancies that might be filled. All nine justices agreed that Obama’s two National Labor Relations Board appointments were improper. The court’s four most consistently conservative justices, though, also signed on to an unusually long concurring opinion that argued for stricter limits on the White House. Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy
so hey at least obama isnt threating to nuke capitol hill over this and makes bernie sanders comment on kissenger from previous debate look a bit more burn worthy in this light
President Richard M. Nixon jokingly threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Capitol Hill in March 1974 as Congress was moving to impeach him over the Watergate scandal, according to transcripts of telephone conversations among his closest aides that were released yesterday. "I was told to get the football," White House Chief of Staff Alexander M. Haig Jr. told Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger less than five months before the president's forced resignation, during a conversation in which the two men exchanged stories about Nixon's increasingly erratic behavior. "What do you mean?" asked Kissinger, who had called Haig to express concern that the president might unwittingly unleash a Middle East war with his new, get-tough policy against Israel. "His black nuclear bag," replied Haig. "He is going to drop it on the Hill." The March 20, 1974, exchange is among 20,000 pages of transcripts of telephone conversations that Kissinger deposited in the Library of Congress in 1976 with the stipulation that they remain secret until at least five years after his death. Kissinger turned the transcripts over to the National Archives in February 2002 after being threatened with legal action by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit group that campaigns against government secrecy. The National Archives reviewed the transcripts for national security and privacy purposes and released almost all of them yesterday. The transcripts shed light on the extraordinarily complex relationship between Nixon and Kissinger during a turbulent period in American foreign policy, from the bombing of Cambodia in 1970 to the Yom Kippur war of 1973 and diplomatic breakthroughs with China and the Soviet Union. Even as Kissinger attempted to convince Nixon of his loyalty, he adopted a sardonic tone in conversations with Haig and other aides.
Are you saying they knew that back when they fought Johnson for 9 months over his appointees?
originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: xuenchen
Sorry Republicans...you cant change the rules in the Fourth Quarter.