SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
(Photo credit: Mark Fischer/Flickr/Creative Commons)
Supreme Court Rules Against Obama On Recess Appointments
Court strikes down three appointments as unconstitutional
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.
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.