Court knocks down Obama, unions
Yael T. AbouhalkahJust days after his highly praised inaugural address, President Barack Obama was batted back down to earth Friday by a court ruling.
This one criticized the president for violating the separation of powers and usurping the Senate’s role of confirming his appointments.
It’s a body blow for Obama and will give more evidence to his critics that he’s trying to act more like a king or dictator than someone willing to work with all sides in improving the nation.
And the ruling really hurts unions.
Specifically, a federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C., said Obama had tried to bypass the Senate last year with some recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
Obama claimed the Senate was not in official session, so he could take that action - something previous presidents of both parties have done.
However, the Senate had agreed to technically stay in session, trying to fend off exactly what Obama eventually did.
The court this week ruled that the Senate - not Obama - had acted correctly in this matter.
An appeal is expected.
However, Republicans as would be expected hailed the decision.
Here’s why this matters to unions: The National Labor Relations Board has been seen by business organizations as a pro-union group. So the GOP and some business leaders have wanted to prevent the group from having a working majority of members.
How do they do that? By the Senate refusing to approve Obama’s nominees.
So now, after Obama’s attempt to get around the Senate’s intransigence has been thrown out by the courts, it’s possible the labor board’s recent decisions will be thrown out, too.
As for the future, with no working majority of members, the board won’t be able to act at all on any labor disputes or questions.
Which is exactly what the GOP has wanted all along.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 3 weeks agoYael, it is puzzling when you say this isn’t good for unions. The only reason that would be true is if the NLRB was skewed towards unions. That is not how it is supposed to be. It is charged with investigating potentially unfair labor practices, not to presume unions as its client.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agoA fairer assessment of the ruling, which said zero’s actions were UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
democrats have done the same tactic andrepublicans honored the recess… Zero of course sees himself as above the law, like a fascist phillie…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 3 weeks agoHere is the problem: The Senate is refusing to VOTE on the nominees — which is its job. The filibuster is being used to prevent a vote. It is the Senate — through its refusal to act — that is abrogating its responsibilities under the Constitution.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 3 weeks agoYes, Phil, and the Senate has a Democratic majority. Yes, I understand the filibuster issue. That has been used by both parties of the years.
If Obama would nominate candidates who are more reasonable to what the people want, we wouldn’t have this problem.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agoSo what is the senate’sbudget excuse phillie?????
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agoSo what is the senate’sbudget excuse phillie?????
Btw, nice spin too phillie….
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 3 weeks agoKent: This is NOT like judges. The President — sorta by definition by WINNING the election — is entitled to EXECUTIVE appointments — or, at minimum, to have them voted on. This is nothing but sabotage.
Even Robert Bork got an up or down vote.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 3 weeks agoPhil, Bork got borked by the original senatorial obstructionist, Ted Kennedy. We don’t do the business of the country by “sorta by definition”.
Life could be different today if Ted had not invented the art of borking.
Reginald Thornton
4 months, 3 weeks agoNo, Phil. And no. Again, you exhibit stunning ignorance of the facts and of our country’s Constitution. First, the Senate wasn’t refusing to act on Obama;s nominations. He hadn’t yet made one of them, and just decided to bypass that part of the process (you know, the messy part where our elected representatives vet the nominees on our behalf, that whole checks and balances thingy). Other vacancies had hardly languished. Secondly, this tactic of pro-forma recess was invented by Harry Reid to prevent W from making recess appointments that were genuinely being denied fair hearings. Where was your outrage then? Right.
Reginald Thornton
4 months, 3 weeks agoAs for the president’s right to make appointments, the co-equal legislative branch has a right to vet them. Those rights go hand in hand, and if one exists then so does the other.