Home » Ruling on Obama’s recess appointments

Comments

Ruling on Obama’s recess appointments — 9 Comments

  1. It’ll be upheld for the simple reason of separation of powers. The President can not simply “deem” the Senate is in recess when they deem themselves to be in session.

    We don’t yet have an official Imperial Presidency, but that’s what the current occupant wants. What’s next, he’ll “deem” that the US Supreme Court has 13 members?

  2. Even if the Supreme Court upheld or reinforced the ruling, the only possible punishment for Obama would be to impeach and convict. Which won’t happen or something as trivial as fealty to the Constitution.

  3. Amen to the foregoing.
    The Imperial Presidency has been a long time a-growing. Imagine a POTUS who says, “I can’t do that” to a Plouffe or a Jarret or a Reid or a Courtney Stark. Which is why we are in impossibly deep doo-doo.

  4. So What, Obama will simply ignore this ruling of the court and the media sycophants will just let it pass on by. Our Imperial President cannot be restrained in his drive to remake this country into a European lookalike.

  5. I’m surprised the “political question doctrine” wasn’t invoked. It still could at SCOTUS, I suppose.

  6. When we begin to think, “How many divisions does the Court have?”, the edge of the abyss is awefully close, beginning to crumble under our feet. Neo is perhaps lighter-hearted than I about such matters, but she will be well-advised to get an “assault” weapon when again available. They hsve flown off the shelves and there are none to be had anywhere.

    The phony recess appointment issue is neither complicated nor legalistic, IMHO. It is stone cold clear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>