President's ability to make recess appointments may be severly curtailed.

[Hansmeister]

They go hand in hand.  The recess appointments are because of the filibuster.

No.  Particularly in this case, where none of those appointments were filibustered. Indeed, Obama never even submitted the questionnaires to the committee, which meant the Democrats hadnt even scheduled hearings yet.

Why do you suppose that is?

He needed to stack the NLRB with labor activists to help out the Unions who were pissed he hadn't done anything up to date. Particularly, he wanted the NLRB to illegally block the opening of a Boeing plant in SC and to abolish the secret ballot so Union thugs could force workers to vote for them.

The NLRB had already lost multiple lawsuits on the lack of legal basis for their regulations long before this ruling, rendering this attempt of Chicago-style gangster government a colossal waste of time.

However, very revealing of Obama's character.

[Razgovory]

That doesn't explain why Obama didn't submit questionnaires or why hearing weren't scheduled.

[grumbler]

recess appointments were meant to fill gaps between sessions when Congress was out for several months

This is a key point, I think.  In modern times, Congress is never really in recess for any great length of time.  Plus, the idea is to fill vacancies that come up while Congress isn't in session, not allow the President to fill them with people the Senate had refused to confirm as soon as Congress leaves town.

Agreed.  It was a holdover, like the filibuster, from a period when Congress was structured and operated much differently.  In the days of air travel, the idea of a "Congressional recess" is obsolete.  Therefor, so is the concept of recess appointments.

[grumbler]

Glad to see the guy we elected to curtail executive abuses has been checked in his rapid expansion of executive abuses.  USA!  USA!

Speaking of, so when is he going to close Gitmo?

I'd love to see the way Boehner goes apeshit if Obama actually did that.  Not that even Obama would go against the expressed will of Congress like that, but he should take the blame for not closing Gitmo when he had the majority in both houses.

[DontSayBanana]

Democrats invented this to use against Bush. I wasn't complaining the (because recess appointments were meant to fill gaps between sessions when Congress was out for several months, not for this) and I don't remember you complaining then, so who is the hypocrite?

If it is up to the President to decide when Congress is really in session the President could simply ignore the Senate altogether and simply pronounce the Congress isn't in session whenever he wants somebody appointed.

It was always a laughable proposition that the President has the authority to determine when Congress is in session.

The issue is you're bickering over who has what burden when the critical issue should be what happens to a branch or party that's acting in bad faith?

Obama's acting in bad faith by waiting for the pro forma sessions, and since he's bypassed the questionnaires, there's a strong argument that that was his intent in these appointments.

However, there's also the question of Congress acting in bad faith.  You're complaining about the possibility of Congress "never" being in session according to the POTUS, but we're starting to have real cases of Congress "always" being in session via the pro forma sessions.  I can see a need for pro forma sessions dealing with minor issues requiring simple majorities- but there needs to at least be a simple majority present for Congress to be "in session," as far as I'm concerned.

The court wants to know can Congress act during these pro forma sessions.  So do I.  If somebody gavels the session, can there be any progress on any theoretical agenda item for that session?  When that's a clear no, that "session" should not be valid.  I don't understand why you seem to feel that congressmen don't need to work within limitations while the president does.

[Hansmeister]

I think the court was quite clear on that question. 9-0 in fact. The USSC wanted to know how the fuck Obama thinks he has the authority to overrule Congress on an internal matter of Congress. And the USSC found  that Obama was way out of bounds on this.

When you have Scalia and Ginsberg on the same side on a legal argument you'd better call it quits, because there sure as he'll any defensible legal position remaining.

When is Congress in session?  Whenever Congress says it is in session, as it is quite clear from the Constitution.