Obama, a ‘constitutional scholar’ who refuses to uphold the US Constitution. So much for his Oath of Office. Heh.
(Washington Times) –In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obamaâ€™s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panelâ€™s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the presidentâ€™s recess appointment powers donâ€™t apply to â€œintrasessionâ€ appointments â€” those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.
The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.
The judges on Friday ruled that the only clear bright line is when the Senate recesses at the end of the year.
More from WaPo:
A federal appeals court panelÂ unanimouslyÂ agreed that President Obama violated the Constitution last year by appointing three members to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not technically in recess, circumventing Senate Republicans who had held up his picks for months.
The D.C. circuit courtâ€™s ruling could also raise questions about Obamaâ€™s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is being challenged in a separate case.
If the ruling stands, it would invalidate all the decisions made by the NLRB since the appointees joined the board. [...]
At the time, Levin was livid over Obama’s illegal unconstitutional recess appointments and righteously so:
Update: U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell provides some direct quotes:
In its ruling today, the Court said, â€œAllowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitutionâ€™s separation of powers.â€
The Court determined that: â€œAn interpretation of â€˜the Recessâ€™ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law.â€
Update 2: The regime responds: What difference does it make? Absolutely nothing.
White House: Courtâ€™s recess appointment ruling has â€˜no impactâ€™ on NLRB operations