Labor Appointments are Unconstitutional

[RoadToad]

the only problem toad is that your article PROVES my point......the Bush nomination and appointment in this case was done CORRECTLY and while the senate was in recess.....according to the article. So, thanks for validating what I said. It is fine when done LEGALLY.

President Bush nominated Pryor for a seat on the Eleventh Circuit on April 9, 2003. Although the nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and has the support of a majority of the Senate, Democratic Senators to date have successfully filibustered the nomination. On February 20, 2004, while the Senate was in an 11-day recess, President Bush gave Pryor a temporary "recess" appointment to the court, an appointment that will last through the end of 2005.

You seem to be missing MY point. You keep dwelling on whether Congress was in recess or not. The problem with that is, the court basically ignored that point. All they said was the President can't make recess appointments during intra-session recesses, a point which has already been decided otherwise in the case of Kennedy v. Bush:

Some legal commentators contend that the President's recess appointment powers do not
include the right to appoint federal judges. However, on the two prior occasions on which that
issue was raised in the federal appeals courts, the courts upheld the President's right to make
recess appointments to the federal bench. Accordingly, Senator Kennedy raised a more limited
challenge to the Pryor appointment. He conceded that the President has the power to make recess
appointments during inter-session recesses (recesses occurring at the end of the year, after the end
of one session of Congress and before the beginning of the next). But he insisted that the
President may not make such appointments during intra-session recesses, such as the 11-day
Presidents' Day recess during which Judge Pryor received his recess appointment. The appeals
court rejected that argument, agreeing with WLF that history is on the side of President Bush --
Presidents have been making recess appointments to the federal judiciary throughout American
history, beginning with George Washington. Indeed, many Supreme Court justices, including
Earl Warren and William Brennan, first reached the High Court by means of recess
appointments.

This is the exact same reasoning being used in the current case, except this time the court has ruled against Obama. That's why I say, how can it be constitutional for Bush, but not for Obama? It can't. And as the court noted when Kennedy challenged Bush, presidents have been doing this since Washington. With that much history on his side, the Supreme Court is sure to rule in Obama's favor.

BTW, I keep reading in news articles that this has been decided in the courts "multiple times," not just the one time in the Kennedy v. Bush case. I just haven't found descriptions of the other cases.

[roadrunner]

Most of Obama's regulations and executive orders are unconstitutional