It did not take long for there to be a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s recess appointments. As I anticipated, the challenge comes from a business front group, rather than from the Republican Party, as Republicans have no standing to sue over them. The manner in which the challenge has developed could nor demonstrate more clearly why the appointments were so necessary.
President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board was challenged in court by the National Federation of Independent Business, which claims a constitutional violation.
The filing yesterday may be the first legal action targeting the White House appointments made without Senate confirmation on Jan. 4 during a brief congressional break. It was made as part of an existing lawsuit in federal court in Washington over a new NLRB rule that requires employers to notify workers of their rights to form a union.
Without a legal quorum, the board has no authority to enforce the rule, the NFIB, which was joined by four other groups and companies in the filing, argued.
“The grounds for the motion are that very significant events have transpired since the filing of the complaints in this case, particularly within the last ten days,” according to the filing. “The president purported to appoint the new members without the advice and consent of the Senate.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Bloomberg>
Here it is in a nutshell. The NLRB needs a quorum to enforce its rules, such as the rule that requires employers to notify employees on their right to form a union. Anti-union employers want to disobey those rules, thus depriving workers of their just rights. To enable such employers to get away with breaking the law, Senate Republicans hobbled the NLRB by refusing to confirm anyone appointed to the boards, thus preventing an NLRB quorum. Obama’s recess appointments to fill the vacancies on the NLRB created the quorum necessary for the NLRB to enforce the law.
Any vote that does not help keep Republicans out of office is a vote against workers rights.
17 Responses to “Recess Appointments Going to Court”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
well here we agree – yesterday you thought I missed the point – I didn’t – just made my own – and yes I quite agree with you here – and yes we must vote out congress r’s – I’m going with the Justice Party for pres at this point! This however, was a good move by Obama and I’m not the least bit surprised by the flak!
Why would you vote against Republicans for Congress, but for then for President?
Why am I not surprised?
Because to know that was coming isn’t rocket science? 😉
It will be interesting to see just if and how the bought-out, corporatist Supreme Court will screw up this decision, too.
And I’m not sure how they might rule, Jack. It goes beyond Obama against the goose steppers. The decision will either end the President’s Constitutional authority to make recess appointments or end the Senate’s sham pro forma rule, no matter what party controls either.
Rushpubliscums just HATE frivolous lawsuits-unless the suits are to disenfranchise voters in Florida, suppress workers, or keep the President of the United States off the ballot in by-God Alabama and Georgia because he’s a n…. uh, Kenyan.
JR, is there a difference between a n… Kenyan, an o… Kenyan, and a p… Kenyan? 😉
Any vote that does not help keep Republicans out of office is a vote against workers rights.
That’s it exactly.
Thats it in a nutshell–
Since you’re quoting me, I have to agree. 🙂
With how crooked and corrupt the unions have been getting, I hope these challenges go through and that Obummer is deprived of not only these phony appointments, but Slutomeyer and Scragun Kagan in SCOTUS too!
Fred, whatever you smoking, pass it around. 😉
I cannot see how anybody could win against the administration on any challenge to these appointments, but considering the Supreme Court, who knows what will happen.
You have that right, Kevin. See my reply to Jack.
It is too bad that the ‘freedom of association’ as noted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not included in the US Bill of Rights. That makes participating in a union a right.
I know that this is bigger than that. Hanging on this decision is the constitutionality of the nature and timing of presidential appointments. Were Republican/Teabaggers not so focued, so single minded in trying to make Mr Obama a one term president, I wonder if this would even be happening? The appointments may very well have been confirmed and everybody could get on with the running of the country.
Instead, the Republican/Teabaggers are focused on making Mr Obama a one term president and so have basically said ‘no’ to just about everything. This has opened up the legal challenge route to the NFIB in hopes of breaking up union participation in the workplace. And of course, with 5 Injustices out of 9, I personally hate to think how it could turn out. After all, this is the same court that upheld Citizens United and gave corporations personhood.
Your system is superior in that regard.
I agree. See my reply to Jack.
Bingo!