Friday, June 27, 2014

UNANIMOUS! Supreme Court Rules Obama’s ‘Recess’ Appointments UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. There’s only one problem. - TPNN

The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments.

Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesn’t get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does.

This is the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution’s recess appointment clause has been challenged, as no former president has attempted to usurp powers as wannabe dictator, Barack Obama.

Supreme Court Knocks Down Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab - Terry Eastland/Weekly Standard

In NLRB v. Noel Canning, whatever the differences between the bare majority of five justices led by Justice Breyer and the four dissenters for whom Justice Scalia wrote, there is no question between the contending sides that President Obama acted unconstitutionally in making three ostensible recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

...In acting as he did, Obama became the first president ever to attempt to make midsession recess appointments during a three-day break in Senate business. In achieving such a dubious distinction, Obama arrogated unto himself the authority—which belongs to the Senate alone—to decide whether the upper chamber was in recess or not. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, with all nine Justices in agreement, has refused to be an accomplice in this unconstitutional grasp for power.

The Obama Administration’s No Good, Very Bad Day at the Supreme Court - David French/National Review

Two decisions. Two unanimous Obama administration defeats. Two cases where years of leftist sophistry were undone by short paragraphs of basic constitutional common sense. First, in NLRB v. Canning, the Supreme Court answered a simple question — was the Senate in session when the Obama administration tried to pack the NLRB through recess appointments?

...Next, in McCullen v. Coakley, the Court reached yet another constitutional common-sense conclusion — that the First Amendment protects pro-life speech, especially when numerous other statutes or regulations already prohibit truly unlawful activity, like blocking ingress or egress to an abortion facility. There is nothing unlawful about using a public sidewalk to engage in peaceful, close conversation with women seeking an abortion or with abortion workers....

But our celebrations are muted. We still face almost three more years of an administration that will push its executive authority well past its limits, and — in the Supreme Court — we await with grave concern its opinion next week in the abortion-pill mandate cases, the most significant religious-liberty decision in my adult lifetime.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 - John Fund/National Review

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported....

Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.

While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the administration’s argument that a search warrant wasn’t required for the government to look at cell-phone records and data got a lot of attention, it’s not the first time the Obama administration has taken an anti–civil liberties stance. In last year’s case of U.S. v. Jones, the Justice Department essentially tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure should not prevent the government from tracking any American at any time without any reason.
__________________

John Fund, by the way, has a new book out: ◼ Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Spoiler: Things are even worse than you think. - via Instapundit
__________________

Buy a copy ◼ HERE, or join us July 19th at our Sizzlin' Summer GOP Fundraiser - John Fund is our Guest Speaker. Buy your copy there and get it autographed!
__________________