In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court Friday ruled that President Obama’s appointment of three people to the National Labor Relations Board last January was unconstitutional, determining that Obama had made “recess” appointments last January when the Senate was in fact not in recess.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could have bearing on the appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray was appointed at the same time, and a separate case challenging his appointment is also wending its way through the courts.

Obama appointed Cordray and the NLRB officials after the Senate did not act on their nominations. Ironically, Obama renominated Cordray Thursday for the position.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the ruling would have no ripple effect and only apply to the case that was considered by the appeals court, suggesting that decisions made by the NLRB since the invalid appointments would stand and Cordray wouldn’t be affected.

He gave no hint what the administration’s next step would be.

Have a look.

88 thoughts on “Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional”

  1. (a) The act was deemed unconstitutional because “technically” the Senate was still considered in session. That is a fact, the act is therefor unconstitutional.

    (b) Good that it was found unconstitutional. The system works.

    (c) Both parties use recess appointments and both parties try to prevent them from occurring by minding the Senate Calendar.

    (d) Such appointments go back to George Washington.

    (e) Larger story, why are appointments taking so long? The NLRB appointees for crying out loud…

    (f) Me thinks the Dems are merely getting a dose of their own medicine.

    Life Lesson – while what goes around comes around does not always ensure a fair playing field or ultimate justice, we all get it. And, sadly, the Senate remains dysfunctional – fodder for the comedians. Sad for Americans… :(

  2. Well I’m sure 60 Minutes interview with Obama and Hillary will answer all our
    questions on this and Benghazi. Seriously neither of them have addressed
    any issue in full to the American people at least the ones not drunk on the Obama Koolaid. I don’t count the theatre of the ‘hearing’ it was a sham. Saw
    a clip of the media’s questions to Obama. I wasn’t that deluded and star struck
    when I fell in love with the Beatles in 1964.

    1. Interview with them? You just described my basic nightmare. The only thing that could make it more abrasive and stupid would be for David Gregory to do the asking.

        1. There IS going to be an interview. I thought this was a joke. I guess the show ran out of soccer stars and musicians. Or is this just the bi-monthly Obama outing for them?

  3. As he often has a tendency to do, Jay has evaded the real issue at hand here.

    The court has no problem with recess appointments. As Carney says, there have been many in the past. But the court ruled that the Senate was not in recess, but was actually in session when Obama made the “recess” appointments.

    Get it, Jay?

    And how arrogant of the Administration and the NLRB to say that they disagree with the court and therefore won’t follow its decision.

    1. Michael – We are a litigious lot in America. I do not think it is arrogant for this, or any administration, to disagree with a court ruling. It is, um, kind of the American way. It’ll all get worked out – at our expense BTW… That sucks…

      That said, it is just a game. Tit for tat. The Dems played games with Bush appointees and now must face the, the, um what – music – even if it ain’t being lip-synced…. ;)

      Good stuff.

      1. ah, but you’re missing an important point, RT. when the Dems “played games” with Bush’s picks the MSM told us that the stupid Bush was appointing dangerous extremists and weirdos. when the Republicans do the same, the MSM tells us that dangerous extremists and weirdos are holding up confirming Obama’s perfectly reasonable appointees.

      2. Not missed. Not addressed. Agreed on 95% of your post (there was one appointee that was pretty borderline weird by most standards…). But you are spot on.

        I have NEVER claimed that folks left of center do not whine like a 12 year old after Mom takes her cell phone away… And, they do so with a special indignation that those right of center find really irritating.

        We could characterize how a right winger whines, but why bother. It ain’t important.

        Let ’em (the Dems) whine. As I said, tit for tat.


    2. I’m not surprised this rogue regime would ignore the court’s ruling. Back in 2011, Preezy Revenge ignored Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling. Eventually he issued a contempt of court citation against the Department of Interior for ignoring his order to lift the drilling ban in the Gulf.

      This decision is a big win for the rule of law. Unfortunately, the little dictator won’t obey the order. Who is going to make him? Congress? The Department of Injustice?

  4. if you guys haven’t yet read David Mamet’s outstanding essay on the futility of gun laws, you should go do so–I mean, AFTER reading Keith’s entire site, of course!

    he makes the comment that Obama considers the Constitutions a “list of suggestions.” that’s exactly it. they don’t apply to him like they might apply to mere mortals.

    1. That is the same thinking that brought you, not the Ten Commandments, but the Ten Suggestions.

      Pick and choose what you like, and then toss the rest into the trash heap.

  5. Barry do something unconstitutional? say it ain’t so! I hope someone will finally ask which Constitution it is that’s he’s a scholar of, cos he sure doesn’t know anything about the United States Constitution.

    1. Corey – The President’s knowledge on the constitution is superb by any standard. By stating otherwise, you demonstrate your ignorance and no one will take what you have to say seriously.

      If you meant to bring up another point, it got lost somewhere.

      1. Oh–well, since it’s your OPINION that he is a Constitutional scholar (he was a lecturer not a professor), then that settles it. Whew. This one has been going on a while.

      2. Heaven forbid Star, this ain’t really about my opinion, geez. It could be, you want it to be, but it simply is not. It is about you, and your misery, bias, and delusion… If you care to, go read the definitions of those three words. Try them on. See how they fit. Comfy? Don’t do anything rash.

        RT: “Corey – The President’s knowledge on the constitution is superb by any standard. By stating otherwise, you demonstrate your ignorance and no one will take what you have to say seriously.”

        STAR: Oh, sorry RT… I get it now… Listen RT, have patience with me. I am just a mean-spirited person who hates Obama with such visceral passion that it clouds my judgement and impedes my ability to reason. Even when I know the truth, I look for opportunities to spew out my hatred and when someone, anyone, appears to be saying something remotely nice or that could in some conceivable manner be interpreted as a positive – in ANY fashion. And, RT – if I can tell you honestly, I appreciate all you do, cuz, simply, cuz you provide me the opportunity to display the depths of my inner being to you and others on this forum. Bless you RT.

        RT: Oh! I am sorry. let me see if I understand this. So I am not really the problem here? I am the solution – providing you a venue to display your best behavior! OK, got it. I’ll soldier on!

        ~ RT

        1. Aw, you wouldn’t want to put thoughts in my mind, would ya? I am not reading you any more but someone emailed me that you had attempted to take MY inventory. I would say I have contempt and disdain for this admin, not hatred. And of course, I follow this closely so I know the president is not really a constitutional genius. But–who knows maybe he is and only demonstrated that in the Law Review articles we are not allowed to critique.

          1. Star – Hah! You crack me up. We move from the rant / babble of Corey to President Obama – Constitutional genius. What a ride. Geez.

            Oddly, no where do you ask if I considered President Obama a “good or bad” scholar. We have a whole range to consider and discuss. Nope. You just make assumptions regarding my beliefs and values – more often than not inaccurate assumptions – and we enter the death spiral.

            Let me state my position clearly. I hold that our President does possess superb knowledge of the constitution (original claim) and is fairly considered a scholar on that specific subject. You disagree. OK. No one really cares either way.

            To my point – an individual may possess “superb” knowledge of specific subject and be considered a scholar by the nature of the definition. That said, meeting these two attributes does ***not*** suggest or determine that said individual is necessarily the best or brightest – that line of inquiry is, by definition, a subjective ride waiting to happen. One can simultaneously have superior knowledge, be a scholar in that area, and be “nuts” on something specific or nearly all the time – the “nuts part” being assessed by any given third party. Shall we talk John Roberts?

            Star – you will not win this debate if we stay vertical, so I will help you. I’ll leave a final note and move on – to which you will be thankful I am sure.

            I’ll resolve: You stated clearly you do not hate President Obama – you merely have “contempt and disdain” for his administration. I do not know what you “actually feel”, I just read what you write and make inferences that seem appropriate provided the context of your words. Therefore, I am compelled to believe you.

            That stated, have a peek here. Maybe you just chose the wrong words to express yourself. Dunno. I think a reasoned person can see how I came to the wrong conclusion regarding your feeling toward our President.

            Main Entry: disdain  [dis-deyn, dih-steyn]
            Part of Speech: noun
            Definition: hate; indifference
            Synonyms: antipathy, arrogance, aversion, contempt, contumely, derision, despisal, despisement, despite, dislike, disparagement, hatred, haughtiness, hauteur, insolence, loftiness, pride, ridicule, scorn, sneering, snobbishness, superbity, superciliousness
            Notes: contempt is a more engaged, more involved feeling of disapproval than disdain

            I’ll leave you with a familiar quote – “Your actions speak so loudly, I can not hear what you are saying.” ~ Emerson

            My bad.

            ~ RT

      3. RT, I disagree with your assessment of the president as a constitutional scholar. Making the assumption that he is we could test the assumption against the data. Oh wait, there is NO data from any scholarly work that he has any expertise as a constitutional scholar. However, we do have plenty of data that he is a mean small-minded man who consistently divides the country with clever, yet meaningless topics while stifling freedom.

        1. I still wonder what Barack Hussein Obama’s “GPA” was at Columbia & Harvard? Has anyone seen his offical “transcripts”? What classes did he take to influence his ‘view of the world’? what Profs (left-wing/socialist?) influenced Obama?

    2. He is not a “scholar” of any Constitution. The media tout him as a former “professor of constitutional law;” he was not, He was a “senior lecturer.”

    3. Boo! I mean Boo. Hah – love the Nic Name. I went to write Boo hah! and giggled like a girl. Wait, I am a girl… Conflicted again…

      I do I say this – Plaaaaaaaeeeesssssssse. Drop me a line with the definition of a Scholar. I assume you know how to use one. I do, and I have a hard time spelling scholar… My posts have more typos that Dems have liberal aids…

      Back on task – Did you know that “technically” someone with a JD can be called Doctor like Dr. Smith? Dr. Obama. I like it…. Dr. B for short. Dr. B-Man… Dr. O…

      Oh, again on task. Get this news… If some one attends a prestigious law school, graduates, passes the Bar, works as president of Harvard Law Review, and then teaches in the field of “Constitutional Law” for several years at a Major University – I am going to call them a constitutional scholar.

      Do let me know where you place the bar. I am all ears.

      ~ RT

      1. And apparently an Affirmative Action flunky like “Dr. B.” can be called a Scholar, just like an Imbecilic fool like “RT” can be called a Worthless Lefty!

        1. You can have the title and be wrong and occasionally ill informed. Are you suggesting that is so? Oh, BTW, being a Scholar has nothing to do with ethics or application in the real world. If this is where you are going, go there. Leave his credentials alone cuz you look silly at that level.

      2. A scholar is someone who devotes his/her life to the study of a subject, writes on the subject, either in book or article form. A scholar is someone who proves a point by closely reasoned argument and by citing other scholars to prove a thesis. That’s a start, anyway, to the definition of a scholar.

        I dropped out of a reading group (Diarmid MacCulloch’s First Three Thousand Years of Christianity–now there’s a scholar for you) because an O’bot in the group kept insisting that Obama is a Lincoln scholar. Oh yeah? Where are the books, where are the journal articles, where are the other ‘scholars’ citations of Obama?
        As far as I know, he is a ‘Lincoln scholar” because he once was sighted toting Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals. And she as we all know is a plagiarist.

        1. Julie – Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong. For me, this is not a fight worth having – especially if you read the thread fthat originated rom Corey and take all responses in complete context.

          You had time to look the term up… Interpret as desired…

          1. RT has an opinion on everything, and apparently thinks her viewpoints are somehow valuable. But you know what they say about opinions……..

          2. Still waiting for RT to answer Otis Driftwood’s question of a few days ago. It was a simple Yes/No as to military service. The brevity and clarity of Yes or No is difficult for some of us prone to word salad.

          3. Hi Grace. I did, that same day. Glad to see you are a follower (kidding)… Go read it. I expect you will be surprised. And, then you will decide whatever you decide…

          4. Corey – No you did not ask for my opinion. But, good news, I commented upon your opinion nonetheless.

            This sums up what you have said in this thread… By quoting you, I am actually expressing an opinion – and folks reading your fine work will judge – they most certainly will.

            COREY exuding ignorance: “Barry do something unconstitutional? say it ain’t so! I hope someone will finally ask which Constitution it is that’s he’s a scholar of, cos he sure doesn’t know anything about the United States Constitution.”

            COREY name calling like a 5th grader: “And apparently an Affirmative Action flunky like “Dr. B.” can be called a Scholar, just like an Imbecilic fool like “RT” can be called a Worthless Lefty!”

            COREY trying to be (a) Cute? (b) Witty? (c) Funny? “Don’t you know it’s racist to question a lefty?”

            COREY the Constitutional Scholar, historian, and name caller all in one: “I’m starting to gather that. I guess even an idiot is allowed to spew his/her beliefs…That’s what this country stands (stood?) for.”

            Go Corey! Contributions for the ages. On the record, I do not think you are an imbecile or worthless. What I do think, I just expressed.

            ~ RT

          5. it’s ok gracepmc, I already knew the answer but was curious if I would get a simple reply. He did state yesterday in another post he has not served but in jobs that can be as close as you can get. I have never seen a govt job that can be just as close to being in the military, boots on the ground and in the trenches, or flying support, driving the boat / ship, etc., with the exception of certain branches of DHS and Justice. But those jobs have better pay, benefits, and allot more time off to decompress.

            I do give kudos to family members who are or have served.

            So to me, I would equate his personal experience as someone who would answer no, I did not serve but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

          6. I served. 8 years in DC area at DIA and 5 years overseas with another agency. And, while I support and hold our folks serving in a conventional service branch in the highest, I am not sure where your line of inquiry is going given the context of this particular thread. I could guess, but I’ll pass.

          7. Nope RT, my reply was to gracepmc’s question. Had you initially provided the the above background a couple of days ago or a yes/no answer instead of a long winded open response, I might have posted something different.

            And BTW it had nothing to do with this thread.

          8. RT; there is an unwritten protocol at this blog and some others we all visit; we express our opinions without denigrating other’s opinions. We don’t like bullies or smarty-pants here who seem to take pleasure in disecting what others write.

            Say what’s on your mind without referencing what others have written. Give us an opposing view on current events if you must. You do know that this is not a pro-Obama blog, and nothing you write will change our minds.
            If you need validation of your opinions, I recommend HuffPost or DaliyKos where your fellow travelers meet.

          9. @RickW – I get your points. You noted that you walk away from the absurd and don’t bother yourself responding. Not a bad strategy. I do this also for about 99% of the posts – there is not enough time in the day. I try to be choosy…

            That stated, when I do express myself – I do so in predictable fashion – typically finding some huge gaping void in logic or facts. At that point Rick – choices are made by others, not me – typically the pile on. Not unexpectedly, others flock to protect the wounded soul, ignore the “actual dialog” in play, and exit the scene. This technique is almost Hyena like if I can use that metaphor politely. And frankly, I do not expect cohesive point-by-point reply from srdem65 – even though I answered each of his points in detail and he is VERY active on this site and one of the most respected – me included.. At any rate, thank you for the advice and strategy. Appreciated

            @Guillermo Grande – Thanks. I read your response here and the one below. I am taking Rick’s advice… :) But thanks for dropping in.

            Guillermo Grande: “One observation: we keep calling them Dems. They are not. They are progressives which with the amount of education in today’s electorate isn’t helpful. After all, who doesn’t want “progress”? No these Dems are Marxist facists and communism is but one goal of many.”

            RT Reply: ***Nothing **** Go RT!

          10. srdem65 – I’ll be careful here so as not to get sideways – because what you wrote does, actually, bother me some – a rarity, but there you have it. And I will cite the parts that do bother me so you and I can share a conversation – and if necessary, Keith can handle as he see fit.

            First, Keith will warn me and then kick me out if on a sustained basis I do not meet his basic set of his guidelines. That simple. I would guess, he is receiving notes from some on here to do that right now – banish RT. I would also ***guess*** that he is forced to read some of my dribble to make a determination whether I add or subtract for the main purpose of this site.

            Preamble: If you can cite posts where I have not attempted to correct a misunderstanding, or respond with facts, or respond with non vulgar dialog that moves the conversation along, call me out. If you are talking about somebody having “hurt feelings” because they ***feel*** “intellectually pants” – it is most likely that someone said something egregiously offensive, were overtly arbitrary, were inaccurate to the degree of pain, or were just plain bonehead – don’t shoot the messenger…

            Here is my rub with your post:

            (a) “we express our opinions without denigrating other’s opinions.”

            Sorry srdem65, but this is not nearly accurate. Maybe it is a standard you hold dear for your personal posts, but it not true for most posting here. Now if you want to argue that I “cause” or force folks to name call or belittle me by asking for clarification, pointing out an inaccuracy, or offering a different position – I am guilty. But come on… My fault?

            (b) “We don’t like bullies or smarty-pants here who seem to take pleasure in disecting what others write.”

            On the Bully part – No you don’t. Nor do I. If you consider my measured discourse bullying, you need to get a grip on reality. I am not trying to bully anyone. Sometimes I hold a different opinion. I back up my opinions by stating facts as I know them and or pointing out tactical, strategic, or practical factual errors in a post. Often, I merely break a correlation of two disparate data points… I can ***NOT*** control how someone feels after they receive the brunt of a logical, well-written reply that forces them to think about what they posted… Accountability is a bitch.

            That said, I find the last part of this sentence to be way off base and inappropriate for this forum – the “disecting what others write”. Huh? Come on. All of us “read” and make interpretations. The dissection process STARTS with Keith electing to post what he wants and making introductory comments. Am I missing something here? The whole process of discourse and collaboration involves dissection, consideration, occasional conflict, and stimulated conversation.

            (c) “Say what’s on your mind without referencing what others have written.”

            How does one do that srdem65? Post a response and place it “somewhere in the Forum” and hope others can figure it all out? Including the person being responding to? Sorry, but no. If there is a specific part of any post that I agree with, or disagree with, or just want to add to – I will cite it out of courtesy to the reader ***and*** to avoid unnecessary confusion. That simple. Example – look at how my post is written here? Imagine the task of a detailed / meaningful response without some managed approach on the dialog…

            (d) “You do know that this is not a pro-Obama blog, and nothing you write will change our minds.”

            First, if you will never change your mind on any possible topic in this forum, I am sorry for you. Second, I hope you are only speaking for yourself. Lastly, understand I continue to hold dear to the premise that I will learn and develop and grow my thought processes to the day I die. You and me. We’ll have to disagree on this point.

            (e) If you need validation of your opinions, I recommend HuffPost or DaliyKos where your fellow travelers meet.

            Thank you, but no thanks. I get all of the validations, what little I may psychologically require, right here and in friendly debate with my friends on the left and friends on the right. Oddly, I am considered by those who actually know me to be a conservative, with some centrist leaning on 2 or 3 social considerations. At the end of the day, I am told I am a black-hearted capitalist. I do not like that title and disagree with those who label me with it.

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

            ~ RT

          11. RT, my $.02 I see this blog as a way to get the opinions of others on political facts of the day concerning the Obama White House. If I see one I agree OR disagree with and I think its worthy a response to stimulate some discussion, I’ll post something. However, it will always be “light”. If I feel I need to “correct” someone, request they cite sources, etc, I won’t comment. Why? Because this is not a courtroom, a boardroom or anything formal. If Susan, Star, srdem et al say something off the wall, my feeling is “LOL Did they REALLY mean to type that? Oh well”

            I admire the obvious intellect that is behind your comments. But, I think even you would agree some/many of your comments could be taken as a lecture. I don’t read Keith’s blog to be educated or “corrected”.


          12. RT, I’m with srdem and a bit with rickw. To sedem’s point this site is about the White House and unfortunately….then Obama. You seem to have a desire to make this about you and perhaps that is what is intended.

          13. Amen, srdem!

            A few days ago RT declared that he/she would only be here for ‘a couple of days’ – leading one to the conclusion that his ‘assignment’ would be short term. If it looks like a duck, quacks liked a duck…it usually is…a troll. It appears that RT is enjoying himself/herself thoroughly, especially with his/her use of the personal pronoun, “I”. Shades of BHO!

            Have a nice day, RT…Boggs, Death Ray, or whichever nom de plume you prefer. Your ‘talents’ are going to waste on this blog.

          14. Hi Girl1 – and a few days it has been. Thank you for living up to the unwritten standards.

            I may check back now and then. In the interim, soldier on and do not let the flame get extinguished… Remember, Disdain and contempt can fuel the person, but not the soul.

            ~ RT

  6. So read the analysis over at Commentary. This is way more than just O getting shut down : this opinion changes very fundamentally how a recesss appt works . The more interesting issue will be how the Supremes vote . A 6-3 or 7-2 decision there will be really ugly for O , as much as he ever cared about the Law.

  7. This ruling is a major setback for the unions that have this President in their pocket. The NLRB rulings made by this illegal board are all in limbo now, or just moot.
    Instead of salting the NLRB with union sympathizers, maybe the President might consider putting together a fair balance of members.

  8. Finally, a smack-down for the arrogant rogue/renegade POTUS!

    Today’s appeals court decision was based not on the word ‘recess’, but on the word “THE”. The Constitution says presidents can fill up vacancies “that may happen during THE recess of the Senate.”

    In the court’s opinion, the only recess that counts is the official and formal recess declared at the end of every congressional session—not summer break or spring break or Christmas break or all the other breaks the Congress has during the year. The last one–that, the judges declared, is “THE recess.” And that’s all that matters.

    We’ll see if Obama has the chutzpah to argue the meaning of the word “THE” if and when the case goes to SCOTUS.

  9. “Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional”

    So’s everthing else he does. Why pick on this?

    After all, that whole “Constitution” thing is SO dead, white guy….

    “Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?” = Louis Michael Seidman, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University

    Yeah, who needs rule of law when you have such a smart, handsome, and just plain better than anyone else guy in the White House, anyway? After all, every OTHER time in human history we gave up rule of law in favor of rule by personality, it’s worked out just fine, right?

  10. This administration will continue to ignore any branch of government other than the executive unless the others fall into lockstep. Obama will not remove the unconstitutional appointments nor rescind or recall any decisions made by the unlawful group.
    He has proven in the past that he believes himself to be a law unto himself. He has proven that America’s laws and constitution apply only to the “little” people. Anyone who expects this administration to suddenly do an aboutface best not hold their breath.
    The recent photo of the leaders of our country indulging in cells while patriotic Americans and Obama supporters waked and rode in a parade in his honor says everything you need to know.

    1. Why are they using a High School for this speech?? Disruptive to the students and local neighborhood. Unless it’s cheap or free.

      I love this comment – “We need something soon. Families are being separated every day,” said Silva, a so-called Dreamer who has applied for a work permit the Obama administration offered last year to young immigrants. She has not yet received it.

      My answer to her – “Don’t hold your breath thinking you will get it anytime soon” Immigration policy is in such a mess, but wait, the Obama Administration will need another 100,000 federal workers to get things going.

      1. Using the high schools — and colleges also — perhaps there is a substantial population of anchor babies and/or their families. Getting out the message on immigration.
        Speaking of message, there has been quite a discussion on some of the other blogs I visit (none so sterling as Keith’s) about getting out our real message in an effective way. There was a lot at Ace, but here is a link to something that was interesting. If you read it and then track back to the original article linked therein you might find it interesting. Anyway, my point being that as long as we communicate poorly and because we are at a disadvantage with a biased media, it’s easier for the Social Democrats to misrepresent us to potential voters. Yikes hope I am not too off topic. Here’s the link

    2. I just saw a post on FB, the two daughters mugging it up for a cell phone pic, making faces and flashing gang sign while the parade is going on. What the hell?

  11. Recess appointments are just that: appointments when the Senate is not in session. Why was the Senate in session? You’ll have to ask Hary Reid. I seem to recall there was some unfinished business that Reid was doing at the behest of the Administration. So Reid ACTED as if the Senate was in session and the Administration ASSUMED the Senate was in session.
    The Appeals Court made the right call. I am somewhat relieved there are still Judges who don’t see the Constitution as a “Living Document” flexible to the whims of the next Executive Branch.

  12. Off topic but Michelle’s looking for a new cause. Guess she’s tired of feigning
    interest in the military. New motto ‘having a great time on the taxpayer dime’.

  13. Don’t worry, Obots. The Dems doubtless anticipated this result and already have in a place their next move, which will permanently disable the Constitutional separation of powers. This Obot-crowd never is at a loss. That’s the way they work against us because they are not hampered by notions of fair play or respect for America’s values or heritage.

  14. Incidentally, whether the president is a world-class student of the Constitution or not does not matter–plenty of people can fill him in–and he knew the Senate had to be in recess. He just decided to roll the dice and try to say it was a “fake” recess and the court disagreed.

Comments are closed.