(Photo credit: Mark Fischer/Flickr/Creative Commons)
Jun 26, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down three of President Barack Obama's recess appointments, ruling that he violated the constitution by filling temporary vacancies when the Senate was still in session.
The unanimous 9-0 ruling backed Senate Republicans and will limit Obama's ability to make future appointments.
Although the decision was unanimous, the court was split 5-4 over the extent of the president's power to make recess appointments altogether. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the ruling risks allowing the selection privilege to become "a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates," while Justice Stephen Breyer stated that going any further in limiting the president's power in filling vacancies could disrupt "centuries of history" of traditional practice.
Obama previously argued that the Senate intentionally tried to obstruct his attempts to make recess appointments, having three-day "brief sessions" during an extended break and creating a resolution that no business would be conducted during that time. The court rejected his argument, stating that the presidential power to make recess appointments only applies to breaks that take place after the end of a full Congressional session and before the start of a new one, rather than those that take place mid-year.
"We must give weight to the Senate's own determination of when it is and is not in session," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's decision. A recess of less than 10 days is "presumptively too short" to allow for presidential appointments.
The Senate confirmed all three of the selections, so the ruling will not have any immediate effect. However, it could be felt in the near future, as midterm elections may result in a Republican-majority Senate and NLRB appointments expire in 2018.
_____________________
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down three of President Barack Obama's recess appointments, ruling that he violated the constitution by filling temporary vacancies when the Senate was still in session.
The unanimous 9-0 ruling backed Senate Republicans and will limit Obama's ability to make future appointments.
Although the decision was unanimous, the court was split 5-4 over the extent of the president's power to make recess appointments altogether. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the ruling risks allowing the selection privilege to become "a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates," while Justice Stephen Breyer stated that going any further in limiting the president's power in filling vacancies could disrupt "centuries of history" of traditional practice.
Obama previously argued that the Senate intentionally tried to obstruct his attempts to make recess appointments, having three-day "brief sessions" during an extended break and creating a resolution that no business would be conducted during that time. The court rejected his argument, stating that the presidential power to make recess appointments only applies to breaks that take place after the end of a full Congressional session and before the start of a new one, rather than those that take place mid-year.
"We must give weight to the Senate's own determination of when it is and is not in session," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's decision. A recess of less than 10 days is "presumptively too short" to allow for presidential appointments.
The Senate confirmed all three of the selections, so the ruling will not have any immediate effect. However, it could be felt in the near future, as midterm elections may result in a Republican-majority Senate and NLRB appointments expire in 2018.
_____________________
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down three of President Barack Obama's recess appointments, ruling that he violated the constitution by filling temporary vacancies when the Senate was still in session.
The unanimous 9-0 ruling backed Senate Republicans and will limit Obama's ability to make future appointments.
Although the decision was unanimous, the court was split 5-4 over the extent of the president's power to make recess appointments altogether. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the ruling risks allowing the selection privilege to become "a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates," while Justice Stephen Breyer stated that going any further in limiting the president's power in filling vacancies could disrupt "centuries of history" of traditional practice.
Obama previously argued that the Senate intentionally tried to obstruct his attempts to make recess appointments, having three-day "brief sessions" during an extended break and creating a resolution that no business would be conducted during that time. The court rejected his argument, stating that the presidential power to make recess appointments only applies to breaks that take place after the end of a full Congressional session and before the start of a new one, rather than those that take place mid-year.
"We must give weight to the Senate's own determination of when it is and is not in session," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's decision. A recess of less than 10 days is "presumptively too short" to allow for presidential appointments.
The Senate confirmed all three of the selections, so the ruling will not have any immediate effect. However, it could be felt in the near future, as midterm elections may result in a Republican-majority Senate and NLRB appointments expire in 2018.
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.