Monday, June 30, 2014

What Is Going On?

The Supreme Court has ruled against President Obama's NLRB appointments done without Congressional consent. Presidential appointments are made with "advise and consent" of the Congress and the rules are constitutional, not traditional.There is some debate over how appointments may be made when Congress is not in session. Some think that appointments may be made if Congress is in recess for at least ten days; some say that such appointments may be made only when the vacancy occurs when the Congress is out of session. No one thinks that the President can make appointments by himself with the Congress in session and without their consent. The Court ruled 9-0 against him.
Few people knowledgeable about the matter were surprised and fewer lawyers. The real question is, why did Obama do it? He certainly knows the law--or should. He certainly got advice from his in-house people who must have advised that it was illegal. So why did he do something that violated constitutional law from almost any political viewpoint?
The fallout from this is considerable; it is not just procedural. These appointments are over two and a half years old and all their decisions are now invalid. Everyone who has had a negative decision from this board now has the right to sue and will expect to be vindicated. There are over 700 cases that this board has decided on since the challenged appointments. All of them are technically invalid. This will be chaos.
So why did Obama do this? Why did the President of the United States purposely violate a clear and well understood concept in the government structure? What could be his motive?
What is wrong here?

No comments: