Recusal In Order

Recusal In Order

The Free Beacon asks an interesting question -- will Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from a case dealing with recess appointments to the NLRB? Critics of President Barack Obama’s recess appointments are calling on Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from a potential Supreme Court hearing on the matter. The Chamber of Commerce raised the prospect of recusal, citing then-solicitor general Kagan’s defense of President Obama’s recess appointments in a previous case regarding the composition of the National Labor Relations Board. The Supreme Court invalidated more than 600 NLRB decisions in the June 2010 case New Process Steel v. NLRB because the board had been issuing decisions with only two members. Kagan defended Obama’s approach to board composition and recess appointments in several briefs, writing in April 2010 that the court “would significantly burden the rights protected” by the National Labor Relations Act if it decided against the administration. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in January ruled in Noel Canning v. NLRBthat Obama violated the Constitution when he appointed Richard Griffin and Sharon Block to the board without Senate confirmation while the upper legislative chamber was in pro forma session. Legal experts predict the case will end up in the Supreme Court.

Union Officials Can Run But Can’t Hide from ObamaCare

After spending millions in forced workers dues money to pass ObamaCare, union bosses are growing wary of the impact of the law.  Of course, they are ready to ask for a taxpayer subsidy: Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.   To offset that, the nation's largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance. In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans. Contacted for this article, Obama administration officials said the issue is subject to regulations still being written. Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue in labor's push for subsidies. The plans are jointly managed by unions and employers and used mostly by small companies. They are popular in industries such as construction or trucking or hotels, where workers' hours fluctuate. By contrast, unionized workers at big employers such as Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. tend to have a more traditional insurance arrangement run through only one employer.
Mr. President, Follow the Law

Mr. President, Follow the Law

The Washington Times takes the president and the NLRB to task for ignoring a recent appeals court decision invalidating the president's appointments to the board: When the Constitution puts a limitation on executive authority, the president can’t just ignore it for the sake of convenience. That message was delivered forcefully on Friday in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel declared unlawful President Obama’s installation of three appointees to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in session. The president is compounding his disregard for the Constitution by thumbing his nose at this well-reasoned decision. The nation’s founding document grants the president authority to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” The appellate panel’s ruling points out the use of “the Recess” as opposed to “a recess” or “an adjournment” was not accidental. The term refers to the long break between congressional sessions in which it makes sense for the president to make an interim appointment because the Senate is not available to provide its advice and consent. In his ruling, Chief Judge David B. Sentelle refused to accept novel interpretations meant to expand the appointment authority, saying, “We will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Framers’ choice of words.” Desperate to stack the National Labor Relations Board with Big Labor cronies, the White House refused to allow an old piece of parchment get in the way. On Jan. 4, 2012, Mr. Obama made the appointments even though the Senate was conducting “pro forma” business and the House of Representatives purposely chose to remain in session to thwart the potential recess appointments. Administration lawyers argued before the court that the president, not Congress, had the ultimate power to decide when the Congress was in session. Under this interpretation, Senate participation in the nomination process would be converted from a check and balance on the executive to an empty formality.