Supreme Court / Obama Administration

[B-Man]

Another Judicial Rebuke for Obama

 

For the twelfth time in five years, the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a case made by the Obama administration. This was one of Obama’s worst: The White House took the position that it could decide when the Senate was in recess, in blatant violation of the constitutional order and the ancient tradition that a legislature sets its own rules.

 

The White House wished the Senate to be in recess when in fact it was holding pro forma sessions, because Obama wanted to push through the nominations of three members of the National Labor Relations Board whom the Senate would not approve.

 

{snip}

 

In any case, the Court ruled the appointments invalid since the Senate was clearly not in recess when they were made. (What happens to the NLRB rulings made by the invalidly appointed members is not clear.)

 

This dispute is about more than the prerogatives of the Senate. It’s about the administration’s attempt to overcome a constitutional check on an agenda that puts union privilege above the public good. Obama’s NLRB has repeatedly attempted to thwart American businesses for reasons far outside its proper purview. It attempted to block, for instance, the construction of a Boeing plant in South Carolina on the grounds that not building a new plant in Washington represented retaliation against a union in that state.

 

Americans’ distaste for such policies was part of why the House and the Senate were skeptical of the new NLRB appointments. The NLRB itself is likely a usurpation of the constitutional order, too, and has long accorded unions unfair privileges and shielded their abuses.

 

An administration that has shown no great commitment to the rule of law has been administered a welcome correction, which is good news for the constitutional order and the public it serves.

 

 

.

[Cinga]

Amazing that this guy was sold to the people as a Constitutional "scholar"....

 

Worst part though, is that so many still believe it!!!!!

[IDBillzFan]

You are an idiot. Read the damn thing.

 

Then find all the pending challenges to the ACA. Don't even read those, just find 'em.

 

He started to look into this, but he opted instead to ask Exiled his opinion, who responded by explaining, "You know what they say...see a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg' er down a smack 'em yak 'em."

Edited June 27, 2014 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

He started to look into this, but he opted instead to ask Exiled his opinion, who responded by explaining, "You know what they say...see a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg' er down a smack 'em yak 'em."

 

Sadly, no one's understood a word EII's said since Barbara Billingsley passed away...

[IDBillzFan]

Sadly, no one's understood a word EII's said since Barbara Billingsley passed away...

 

"Chump don't want the help, chump don't get the help. Jiveass dude ain't got no brains, anyhow..."

[3rdnlng]

He started to look into this, but he opted instead to ask Exiled his opinion, who responded by explaining, "You know what they say...see a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg' er down a smack 'em yak 'em."

 

You got the silos to open with your last coded message. i hope this wasn't the launch message.

[B-Man]

Government by fiat

by Dr. Charles Krauthammer

 

The Supreme Court this week admonished the Environmental Protection Agency for overreaching in regulating greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act covers polluters that emit 250 tons per year (or in some cases, 100 tons). This standard makes no sense if applied to greenhouse gases. Thousands of establishments from elementary schools to grocery stores would be, absurdly, covered. So the EPA arbitrarily chose 100,000 tons as the carbon dioxide threshold.

 

That’s not “tailoring,” ruled the Supreme Court. That’s rewriting. Under our Constitution, “an agency has no power to ‘tailor’ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.”

 

It was a welcome constitutional lesson in restraint, noted the Wall Street Journal. One would think — hope — that an administration so chastened might reconsider its determination to shift regulation of the nation’s power generation to Washington through new carbon dioxide rules under the Clean Air Act.

 

Fat chance. This administration does not learn constitutional lessons. It continues marching until it meets resistance. And it hasn’t met nearly enough.

 

The root problem is that the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, was never intended for greenhouse gases. You can see it in its regulatory thresholds which, if applied to carbon dioxide, are ridiculously low. Moreover, when the law was written, we hadn’t yet even had the global cooling agitation of the 1970s, let alone the global warming panic of today.

 

{snip}

 

Our president doesn’t let such niceties stand in his way, however. He has an agenda to enact, boldly enunciated in his Feb. 24, 2009, address to Congress promising to transform America in three areas: health care, education and energy. Education lags, but he’s now on the verge of centralizing energy regulation in Washington through naked executive action, having already succeeded in centralizing health care in Washington through the Affordable Care Act.

 

With energy, he’ll do it by executive order after failing to pass the desired legislation. With health care, he does it with a law that he then amends so wantonly after it passed that the ACA itself becomes a blank slate on which the administration unilaterally remakes American medicine.

 

Employer mandate? The ACA says it was to go into effect Jan. 1, 2014. It didn’t. The administration decreed that there should be several classes of employers, each with different starting dates, contradicting its own law.

 

Private insurance? The law says that plans not conforming to ACA coverage mandates must be canceled. Responding to the outcry that ensued, Obama urged the states and insurers to reinstate the plans — which would violate the explicit mandate of his own law.

 

One bit of ACA lawlessness, however, may prove a bridge too far. The administration has been giving subsidies to those who sign up through the federal exchange. The ACA limits subsidies to plans on the state exchanges.

 

This case will reach the Supreme Court. It is hard to see how the court could do anything other than overturn the federal-exchange subsidies. The court might even have a word to say about the administration’s 22 (or is it 37?) other acts of post-facto rewriting of the ACA.

 

Perhaps. But until then, the imperial president rules.

 

Having been supine for years in the face of these encroachments, Congress is stirring. The Republican House is preparing a novel approach to acquiring legal standing before the courts to challenge these gross executive usurpations. Nancy Pelosi, reflecting the narrowness of both her partisanship and her vision, dismisses this as a “subterfuge.”

 

She won’t be saying that on the day Democrats lose the White House. Then, cheered on by a suddenly inflamed media, the Democrats will no doubt express horror at such constitutional overreach.

 

At which point, the temptation to stick it to the Democrats will be overwhelming.

 

At which point, Lord give us strength.

 

http://www.washingto...48ce_story.html

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

In the defense of those prior administrations, Congress enabled them.

That's no defense. They almost alway have, and they continue to.

 

Further, one branch abrogating its duties to another doesn't change the duties of the third.

[DC Tom]

That's no defense. They almost alway have, and they continue to.

 

Further, one branch abrogating its duties to another doesn't change the duties of the third.

 

"In the defense..." was meant rather sarcastically.

 

You've been spending too much time arguing with gatorman, to not pick that up.

[Chef Jim]

What's the name of the thread?

 

I didn't ask what was the title of the thread. I asked what your post had to do with the thread.

[Big Blitz]

 

Gee...I wonder why that is...

 

Bush's fault.

[TakeYouToTasker]

"In the defense..." was meant rather sarcastically.

 

You've been spending too much time arguing with gatorman, to not pick that up.

Heh

[B-Man]

Court Ruling Comes As Obama's Use of Power Tested

Associated Press, by Jim Kuhnhenn

 

WASHINGTON -- Before a unanimous Supreme Court weighed in, the White House had brushed off claims that President Barack Obama was exceeding his executive authority as just so much grousing from frustrated partisans. Then, in a 9-0 decision Thursday, the high court ruled that at least in one case Obama had gone too far. For Republicans, the court´s decision that Obama violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board without Senate confirmation validated their argument that Obama has acted against the law when he has taken matters into his own hands.

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unanimity At the Supreme Court

Washington Times

 

Original Article

[B-Man]

#SCOTUS on Harris v. Quinn 5 - 4 : "Held: The 1st Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from the (plaintiffs)"

 

Unions lose a limited decision. The decision says that union bargaining fees cannot be imposed on employees that are not full public employees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If unwanted unions can't force mothers to hand over funds intended for their kids' care, I don't want to live in America any more.

.

[Security]

I am not religious at all, but I think people who are religious have been on a progressive path to compromise their beliefs for years. I do think that since this did pass, and Hobby Lobby wants to deny this type of birth control on plans they offer (and they must provide healthcare to employees), that employees should be given some type of compensation from Hobby Lobby should those employees want to seek healthcare outside of what Hobby Lobby would offer. Hobby Lobby can stay true to their beliefs, and employees would not be penalized then. Employees may have to come out of pocket a little more, but would have a chance for other reasonably priced healthcare then. The administration of all this is astounding.

[B-Man]

5 - 4 Hobby Lobby decision.

 

“Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage,”

 

 

 

Two Quick Points re the Hobby Lobby Win

By Ramesh Ponnuru

 

There will be a lot of liberal fulmination today about an activist right-wing Supreme Court and impending theocracy. Just remember:

 

1) If Congress wants to require all employers to cover birth control, it can pass a new law that explicitly exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This ruling wouldn’t be an obstacle to such a law.

 

2) We now go back to the status quo of 2012, when nobody was under the impression that anyone’s rights were being denied just because companies were generally not forced to cover birth control. Pretty sure we weren’t living in Iran then.

 

 

 

 

Thoughts:

 

 

For 221 years of the republic, there were no contraception mandates. Now there are—for some. But Hobby Lobby is the aggressor according to the Left.

 

 

Now we return to the dark ages of 2012, when your boss could pay you in cash instead of contraception.

 

 

Maybe the Left lost every big case because they keep pushing at the Constitution and the law, and the court exists to uphold them?

[Tiberius]

Wonder how the religious rights victory fighting birth control will play out in politics and in other areas of government. Dems will surely benefit from this obvious anti women ruling but I just wonder what the religious fanatics will object to next?

[Security]

They need to hurry up and allow people the ability to choose plans outside the workplace offered healthcare.

 

I think this is actually another thing that works in favor of universal healthcare in the long run.

[Rob's House]

They need to hurry up and allow people the ability to choose plans outside the workplace offered healthcare.

 

I think this is actually another thing that works in favor of universal healthcare in the long run.

 

People are already allowed to do this.

[B-Man]

All you people with blistering opinions on the Hobby Lobby case have read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, right?

 

You know, the one that the Supremes based their narrow decision on today.

 

(Passed in 1993 , unanimous in Dem-controlled House, senate 97 - 3, Signed by President Clinton.)

 

 

If your side is so right, and the ACA so wonderful, just pass a bill exempting Obamacare from the RFRA.

 

The SC certainly left congress that option..................................go ahead.

 

 

 

.