Apostolic Friends Forum - SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Political Talk (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - SCOTUS v Presidential Authority (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=45520)

SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

President Obama's recess appointments to a federal agency– made without Senate confirmation– will be reviewed by the Supreme Court on Monday. It's a rare intersection of all three branches of the federal government and a major constitutional test of executive power.

At issue is whether three people named to the National Labor Relations Board lack authority because the presidential appointments were made while the Senate was technically in a "pro forma" session during the 2011-12 winter holiday break.

Quote:

The lawsuit was brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned Yakima, Washington, bottling company, which complained the NLRB unfairly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract negotiations. Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal.

This is another high-stakes case for SCOTUS and the President. How will it turn out? Will Chief Justice Roberts save obama again?

It's more than just the NLRB's decisions which are at stake here; it's the powers of the President and Congress. Can the President bypass Congress? obama has, time and again. Hopefully SCOTUS and Chief Justice Roberts will bring that to a halt.

Source Link

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1296700)

I think there needs to be a way for the President to function on the rare occasions when the Congress is UNREASONABLY acting in a way that would prevent the President to do what needs to be done.

There is a reason why this Congress has been one of the most ineffecient Congress' in American history-- and it is not good. Neither is it a positive reflection on them as professionals or even people.

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296704)

I think there needs to be a way for the President to function on the rare occasions when the Congress is UNREASONABLY acting in a way that would prevent the President to do what needs to be done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296704)

There is a reason why this Congress has been one of the most ineffecient Congress' in American history-- and it is not good. Neither is it a positive reflection on them as professionals or even people.

The implication is it's Republicans fault, but it's not. The President and Democrats are a big reason as well. How is it Reagan was able to get things done with a Democrat Congress? obama rarely engages Congress, other than to belittle them. It's beneath obama to deal with Congress.

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1296708)

Not when it means subverting the Constitution. There are clear limits to Presidential authority. Unfortunately, only this President thinks he's above the Constitution and able to do whatever he wants.

What's Congress doing which is "unreasonable?" Seriously. I know you mean Republicans when you say Congress is acting "unreasonably," so tell me what they've done which is "unreasonable" and hasn't been done by every Congress (Democrats included) since the Founding Fathers?

The implication is it's Republicans fault, but it's not. The President and Democrats are a big reason as well. How is it Reagan was able to get things done with a Democrat Congress? obama rarely engages Congress, other than to belittle them. It's beneath obama to deal with Congress.

The Republicans of this Congress came to DC with one thing in mind, "... make Obama a one-term President."

They never wanted to work with him from the begining.

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296711)

The Republicans of this Congress came to DC with one thing in mind, "... make Obama a one-term President."

They never wanted to work with him from the begining.

:slaphappy

Lame. No, really, that's a weak argument for subverting the Constitution.

Do you really think the Democrat Congresses in the past wanted the Republican President to pass a lot of his initiatives and look good so he could win re-election?

You can't be that naive, JD. There wasn't one Democrat in Congress who wanted to work with GWB.

Every opposing party has the goal of making the opposing President a one-term President. They may not say it, but everything they do is aimed at making sure the opposing party's President is limited to one term.

That's no reason to subvert the Constitution and grant a President dictatorial powers!

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

FWIW - From the Washington Times: "Justices skeptical of Obama's recess appointment claim."

Quote:

Supreme Court justices took a dim view Monday of President Obama’s claim of almost unlimited powers to appoint top government officials, saying he appeared to be breaking with the founders’ vision of separation of powers between the branches of government when he tried an end-run around the Senate in 2012.

Both liberal and conservative justices seemed skeptical of the president’s claim, though they struggled with how far to go in deciding the limits of a president’s recess appointment power.

Here's the caveat: go back to the SCOTUS arguments of obamacare. If you remember, the press and Democrats were really upset with the Solicitor General - thinking he blew the case and obamacare would be shot down. I listened to the arguments, and in that case as well, both liberal and conservative Justices were extremely critical and questioning of obamacare.

We know the end result was Chief Justice Roberts voted to allow obamacare.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical of the skeptical Justices. :lol Who knows how this will end up.

I find it absurd that the Solicitor General is practically begging SCOTUS to leave it alone and not rule against the President.

Quote:

Obama administration Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli urged the justices not to interfere with the system, saying that even if it violates the Constitution’s language, the executive and legislative branches over the decades have reached a balance that could be upset by the court’s intervention.

“We have, I would submit, an equilibrium that has emerged,” he said. “What we are advocating here is the status quo.”

Hello!?! If it violates the Constitution, it is illegal and should be stopped! It's mind-boggling that these guys admit it's illegal, yet want the illegal activity to continue.

Source Link

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1296712)

I disagree with you.

Most political commentators will tell you that the political climate with this Congress was more toxic and partisan than the Congress' of the past.

As far as not working with GWB, there were so many questions and doubts concerning the NECESSITY of going into Iraq-- and now we find out that they were right to have those doubts as the convincing reasons for Congressional approval to go into Iraq were based on lies.

It's not the same.

The Democrats got things done with GWB.

Republican strategy was to paralyze and shut down the Democrat President by shutting down the government. They allowed our credit rating to suffer in a political stunt to make Obama look bad-- and it back fired.

It's not the same, but you are not being objective.

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296804)

I disagree with you.

I'm not surprised. :lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296804)

Most political commentators will tell you that the political climate with this Congress was more toxic and partisan than the Congress' of the past.

Here's a quiz for you: Which party filed Articles of Impeachment against which President? Democrats/Bush or Republicans/Obama?

Answer: Democrats actually filed, and voted through to committee, Articles of Impeachment against GWB. While a few current Republicans in the House have mentioned impeachment, there have been no Articles of Impeachment drafted yet against obama.

And while you will likely disagree, there are more reasons by Congress to impeach obama than there was for GWB -- because obama has bypassed Congress on many issues, which is why this SCOTUS ruling is huge for both sides.

Does obama bear any responsibility for the current political climate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296804)

As far as not working with GWB, there were so many questions and doubts concerning the NECESSITY of going into Iraq-- and now we find out that they were right to have those doubts as the convincing reasons for Congressional approval to go into Iraq were based on lies.

It's not the same.

You do remember that everyone was convinced of the intel brought against Iraq. GWB did not falsify the intel. I find it ironic that bad intel during GWB admin means he lied; yet bad intel with obama means the intel agencies were bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296804)

The Democrats got things done with GWB.

And obama has signed bills into law with a Republican House. His signature healthcare law was passed into law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296804)

Republican strategy was to paralyze and shut down the Democrat President by shutting down the government. They allowed our credit rating to suffer in a political stunt to make Obama look bad-- and it back fired.

Be careful complaining about the Republicans shutting down the government, you'll lose. Democrats have shut down the government far more times than Republicans.

The opposition to raising the debt ceiling and other financial spending caps was not done just as a "political stunt to make obama look bad." See, here's another area I question your claim of being conservative or a Republican. Any fiscal conservative would be against these massive increases in government spending, with no cuts to offset. Yet your post here implies that Republicans should just roll over and allow obama to pass any and every spending increase or debt ceiling increase.

That's not how it works, and you know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296804)

It's not the same, but you are not being objective.

I'm not being objective?! That's funny, coming from someone who believes obama does no wrong. obama could fart and you would ask where to buy a bottle of the smell. :toofunny

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Not true at all!

I like the smell of my own farts too much to be bothered with buying a bottle of any one else's. :bacon

Re: SCOTUS v Presidential Authority

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 1296711)

The Republicans of this Congress came to DC with one thing in mind, "... make Obama a one-term President."

They never wanted to work with him from the begining.

And why would they want to work with someone who is an overt Marxist trying to destroy our country? I for one applaud all efforts to block the Obama agenda. The GOP Congress was elected to do just that.