|
Scalia is reading his concurrence from the bench, which is rare and kinda weird.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But the senate can set its own rules regarding recesses... The rule about the House assenting to a Senate recess is one of the few rules about recessing that's actually in the Constitution (Article I, Section 5)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
There will now be a flurry of lawsuits trying to invalidate everything the NLRB has done in the past 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Anything without a pending appeal can't be overturned because of the de facto officer doctrine (Buckley v. Valeo).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The rule about the House assenting to a Senate recess is one of the few rules about recessing that's actually in the Constitution (Article I, Section 5) "Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." Yeah with the 3 day thing making it in Boehner can hold things up can't he.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Scalia is reading his concurrence from the bench, which is rare and kinda weird. Ahahaha, condemning them for not upholding the awful DC circuit opinion in its entirety. hobbesmaster posted:"Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." Which is why it is hilarious that Boehner then had the audacity to decry Obama's recess appointments as "not taking into account the will of the Senate to not recess" when, in fact, it was he who basically blocked it, not the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Scalia technically concurs only because Obama lost, but he would have gone a hell of a lot farther. Scalia actually believes recess appointments can only be made between congresses. His concurrance is joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. So the seemingly "nutty" idea that you can only fill a recess between congresses lost narrowly by one vote. (Kennedy)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Scalia is apparently pissed and called the 3 day thing arbitrary when its in fact in the constitution. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Yeah, i'm reading this to mean that the recess power is pretty much dead as it can be effectively blocked any time one of the houses of congress is controlled by the opposite party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But the senate can set its own rules regarding recesses... No it can't. Art I, Sec 5 p. 4. "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Also, thanks, Scalia, for giving the right a new catchphrase: "judicial adventurism"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
"Scalia argues that recess appointments are an anachronism, so there is no reason to bend over backwards to make them broadly available. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.VhKy3JTq.dpuf" Well yeah they're an anachronism now thanks to this decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
From SCOTUSBLOG: In terms of these recess appointments of members of the NLRB, they were invalid. That means that their rulings were invalid. It is unclear what will happen with other NLRB rulings from that period. by tgoldstein 10:22 AM Comment - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.SUBBlZ0q.dpuf
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
So NLRB rulings are invalid, next up Harris v. Quinn turning all of america into Right to Work. Great day.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Just to make sure I understand this- The President is allowed to make recess appointments, but for that to happen both houses of Congress have to agree that they are in recess, and they are allowed to refuse to enter recess indefinitely, so in certain political situations (such as the one we have right now) the President is de facto not allowed to make recess appointments?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Just to make sure I understand this- The President is allowed to make recess appointments, but for that to happen both houses of Congress have to agree that they are in recess, and they are allowed to refuse to enter recess indefinitely, so in certain political situations (such as the one we have right now) the President is de facto not allowed to make recess appointments? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics. I find it hard to agree with that when the decision was unanimous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Although the President can adjourn the Congress if the two houses of Congress cannot agree when to adjourn, I'm not aware of that power ever being exercised, so it's untested. by tgoldstein 10:26 PM - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014/119678068#sthash.YWfPBynj.dpuf
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Just to make sure I understand this- The President is allowed to make recess appointments, but for that to happen both houses of Congress have to agree that they are in recess, and they are allowed to refuse to enter recess indefinitely, so in certain political situations (such as the one we have right now) the President is de facto not allowed to make recess appointments? That isn't exactly what they ruled on, but it is the practical effect of the ruling, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
haveblue posted:Just to make sure I understand this- The President is allowed to make recess appointments, but for that to happen both houses of Congress have to agree that they are in recess, and they are allowed to refuse to enter recess indefinitely, so in certain political situations (such as the one we have right now) the President is de facto not allowed to make recess appointments? yes, but to be fair the idea of recess apointments was not to give the president the power to circumvent checks and balances but to ensure the the executive is not crippled when congress is not in session and could not go into session in a short amount of time (e.g. the 19th century, before cars, air travel, telefons etc.).
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Just to make sure I understand this- The President is allowed to make recess appointments, but for that to happen both houses of Congress have to agree that they are in recess, and they are allowed to refuse to enter recess indefinitely, so in certain political situations (such as the one we have right now) the President is de facto not allowed to make recess appointments? Yes, or stated another way: The president is allowed to make recess appointments to keep the government functioning when congress really isn't in session. He cannot use the power to get around the Senate refusing to confirm his nominees. Remember, he needed the recess appointment because the the Senate said no, not because the Senate was actually unavailable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
McCullen reversed. e: Unanimous again 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics. Its kind of the job of the court to be fill fully clueless of modern day politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
axeil posted:I find it hard to agree with that when the decision was unanimous. That doesn't really matter. The GOP's strategy right now is to just refuse to vote on nominees for departments they don't like ideologically like the NLRB or the CFPB and the court just made that much easier. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
And McCullen is unanimous. Take that, baby-killers. EDIT: Alito likely to write Harris. At least you guys have a few days to stock up on booze to prepare yourselves for National Right-to-Work. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
"The opinion appears to be mainly focused on the fact that the buffer zone includes public ways and sidewalks. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.VhKy3JTq.dpuf" Not too surprising then if its pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
No Quinn or Hobby Lobby today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Unions are not allowed to picket in front of business's but anti women's rights nut jobs are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
I wonder if the buffer zone ruling will cause problems for the buffer zones that most states have set up around voting locations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Unions are not allowed to picket in front of business's but anti women's rights nut jobs are. They are on public property, and the AFL-CIO supported McCullen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Unions are not allowed to picket in front of business's but anti women's rights nut jobs are. Presumably they didn't give a 1st amendment right to block a road or sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Scotusblog is pretty sure Alito will be writing Harris. Whelp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Presumably they didn't give a 1st amendment right to block a road or sidewalk. But they can intimidate all they want!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
"Scalia says in his concurring opinion that Hill should be overruled, which suggests that it has not been. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.VhKy3JTq.dpuf" Maybe he'll get so angry he has an aneurysm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But they can intimidate all they want! But they weren't blocking! Intimidation is dead! -John Roberts
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I wonder if the buffer zone ruling will cause problems for the buffer zones that most states have set up around voting locations. I'm more interested in political conventions, NATO summits, financial districts, and the like. On that note, at the risk of being overly cynical, why can't Massachusetts just do what the NYPD does: declare an area closed to people not having business there (for unspecified security reasons) and arrest everyone who doesn't leave for disorderly conduct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
 ^^^^^^ This
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm more interested in political conventions, NATO summits, financial districts, and the like. On that note, at the risk of being overly cynical, why can't Massachusetts just do what the NYPD does: declare an area closed to people not having business there (for unspecified security reasons) and arrest everyone who doesn't leave for disorderly conduct? Doesn't look like it. John Roberts posted:The Commonwealth has not shown that it seriously undertook to address these various problems with the less intrusive tools readily available to it. It identifies not a single prosecution or injunction against individuals outside abortion clinics since the 1990s. The Commonwealth responds that the problems are too widespread for individual prosecutions and injunctions to be effective. But again, the record indicates that the problems are limited principally to the Boston clinic on Saturday mornings, and the police there appear per fectly capable of singling out lawbreakers. The Commonwealth also claims that it would be difficult to prove intentional or deliberate ob struction or intimidation and that the buffer zones accordingly make the police’s job easier. To meet the narrow tailoring requirement, however, the government must demonstrate that alternative measures that burden substantially less speech would fail to achieve the government’s interests, not simply that the chosen route is easier. In any event, to determine whether someone intends to block access to a clinic, a police officer need only order him to move; if he refuses, then there is no question that his continued conduct is knowing or in tentional. For similar reasons, the Commonwealth’s reliance on Bur- son v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, is misplaced. There, the Court upheld a law establishing buffer zones outside polling places on the ground that less restrictive measures were inadequate. But whereas “[v]oter intimidation and election fraud” are “difficult to detect,” id., at 208, obstruction and harassment at abortion clinics are anything but sub tle. And while the police “generally are barred from the vicinity of the polls to avoid any appearance of coercion in the electoral process,” id., at 207, they maintain a significant presence outside Massachu setts abortion clinics. In short, given the vital First Amendment in terests at stake, it is not enough for Massachusetts simply to say that other approaches have not worked. Pp. 23–29.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Let the court JUST TRY and enforce it. Prove your tyranny Obama!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:43
|
|
