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.
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.
Teamsters Argue Against Obama Recess Appointment Fight

Teamsters Argue Against Obama Recess Appointment Fight

When President Obama appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board when Congress was in session, he violated the Constitution and the National Right to Work Legal Foundation went right to work.  We filed a lawsuit in federal court and from the initial oral arguments, things went well.  Interesting, we have a new ally in the fight -- an Oklahoma local of the Teamsters union: An Oklahoma local of the Teamsters Union is disputing recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), charging that recess appointments were made while the U.S. Senate was not in recess, according to legal documents obtained by The Daily Caller. “The union disputes that the board is properly and sufficiently constituted, as ‘recess’ appointments (to NLRB) were made when there was no recess,” according to a Dec. 12, 2012 affidavit signed by Teamsters Local 523 President Gary Ketchum.
42 GOP Senators Challenge Obama's So-Called NLRB

42 GOP Senators Challenge Obama's So-Called NLRB "Recess" Appointments

Forty-Two United States Senators have joined with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation in protesting President Obama's illegal appointment to the National Labor Relations Board: [media-credit name=" " align="alignright" width="150"][/media-credit]Forty-two Republican senators filed an amicus brief this week in the case of Noel Canning Div. of Noel Corp. v. NLRB, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1115, arguing that the Board lacks a quorum because President Obama's January 2012 recess appointments were invalid. Employer Noel Canning has petitioned the Court of Appeals to deny enforcement to a Board decision by a three-member panel. Among their arguments, the employer asserts that panel members Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn were not confirmed by the Senate and that Congress was in session at the time of their purported recess appointments.