Any surprise?? Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012

Is anyone surprised? Even the most Progressive members of the Supreme Court can't stomach the behavior of President Barack Hussein Obama


Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012
By John Fund
June 26, 2014 11:50 AM

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).

The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

To my Progressive good friends. Yes, this is a Conservative site. It is not an opinion piece so when you attempt to pick it apart, show us where the administration WON those cases.

This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has everything to do with informed and ignorance. The author is correct that the Supreme Court has been slapping down law enforcement consistently for the last six years, and that is an incredibly important correct direction the court has taken. Now one of the elementary uses of propaganda is to take one or two true statements and then generalize as to many other things without the detail of the nexus of those issues. First, almost all those cases involve state and local law enforcement. Yet, the AG has traditionally filed amicus briefs on behalf of law enforcement, and the error of the uninformed is to argue President Obama supported a local cop putting a gps on a car. This would be a lie. The recess appointments were a fraction of what Reagan did, and in all honesty, the liberals have been complaining about the same for forty years, so the court was entirely correct. If the court says they are in session, even if it is only pro forma.....they are in session. Now hopefully you and the author can try to convince folks that the slap down on the fourth amendment expansion by LEO is something the President is fighting......but just like the pro forma session of congress the AG files amicus briefs as a pro forma matter, and these have no more connection to the president, than the Senator skiing in Vail during Xmas is on the senate floor.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Now one of the elementary uses of propaganda is to take one or two true statements and then generalize as to many other things without the detail of the nexus of those issues.

He does this every day...

Glad to see you are beginning to see the corruption of this dismal administration.

Obama has made relatively few recess appointments — 32 in his five-plus years in office, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush made 171 such appointments over two terms and President Bill Clinton filled 139 posts that way in his eight years in office.

But Obama was the first president to try to make recess appointments when Congress explicitly said it was not in recess. The Constitution requires that the Senate and House must get the other's consent for any break lasting longer than three days. At the end of 2011, the Republican-controlled House would not give the Democratic-led Senate permission for a longer break.

The partisan roles were reversed during Bush's presidency, when Senate Democrats sought ways to prevent the president from making recess appointments.

In fact, the very basis on which the justices decided the case — that the Senate can use extremely brief sessions to avoid a formal recess — was a tactic devised by Reid to frustrate Bush.

On a practical level, there may be little difference between how the court decided the case and the way Scalia wishes it had been decided, said Andy Pincus, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer in Washington.

"The recess appointment power has receded into practical irrelevance," Pincus said, pointing to the now-common Senate practice of blocking recess appointments by convening for pro forma sessions. "Today's decision likely cements that reality."

Buckwheat wrote: Obama has made relatively few recess appointments — 32 in his five-plus years in office, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush made 171 such appointments over two terms and President Bill Clinton filled 139 posts that way in his eight years in office.

[...]

"The recess appointment power has receded into practical irrelevance," Pincus said, pointing to the now-common Senate practice of blocking recess appointments by convening for pro forma sessions. "Today's decision likely cements that reality."

Cute try.

What you tried to use to divert attention from the FACTS, as you well know, is meaningless.

It is not the number of recess appointments. ALL of President Clinton's and Bush's recess appointments were LEGAL.

President Obama's appointments were ILLEGAL. Catch the difference?

The entire issue is moot because the Senate rules now allow a simple majority on appointments so that both parties can quit playing games. Mr. Markle, you obviously lack even basic education, but the court found that the appointments when the senate was pro forma still in session are unconstitutional and could not stand. Finding something unconstitutional is not finding something illegal. Illegal suggests that a crime has been committed, and there are criminal sanctions. Unconstitutional has a completely different meaning. Please read the entire Supreme Court decision and find the language the court used calling President Obama's appointments illegal........they never used that wrong concept in the decision......they left that for the uninformed and illiterate who were using propaganda techniques rather clumsily.

It's obviously NOT a moot point as those appointed no longer hold their jobs.....

It's obviously NOT a moot point as those appointed no longer hold their jobs.....


Pace.....you really need to read and pay attention what is really happening in the world. You know the big debate about the change in the Senate rules which now allows a 51 vote in the senate for approval of nominations.....guess what......the NLRB recess appointments, were ALL confirmed.....so exactly what are you talking about.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Now one of the elementary uses of propaganda is to take one or two true statements and then generalize as to many other things without the detail of the nexus of those issues.

He does this every day...

Glad to see you are beginning to see the corruption of this dismal administration.

Your personal corruption is certainly readily apparent.

2seaoat wrote:It's obviously NOT a moot point as those appointed no longer hold their jobs.....


Pace.....you really need to read and pay attention what is really happening in the world.  You know the big debate about the change in the Senate rules which now allows a 51 vote in the senate for approval of nominations.....guess what......the NLRB recess appointments, were ALL confirmed.....so exactly what are you talking about.

Yes, the dems changed that rule last year didn't they oat? because it used to be a 60 vote majority.

That wasn't enough though for Obama, he wants to be dictator and appoint whenever he feels like it and even bypass congress altogether by redefining terms such as recess and session.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/26/republicans-cheer-supreme-court-decision-on-recess-appointments/

The good news? recess appointments should end for both sides. This is a government, not a kingdom.