This is a prime example of liberal media bias and out-right ignorance of law. A DC federal court ruled that Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional because the Senate was still in session (pro-forma). Obama went ahead and appointed his union cronies onto the NLRB board knowing that it was illegal. Now Reuters attempts to defend Obama’s unconstitutional act by lying.
(Reuters) – While President Barack Obama considers his next move in one high-stakes legal fight to fill vacant jobs, his lawyers expect to go to court at least twice more to argue for his power to appoint when the U.S. Senate is not meeting.
Federal appeals courts in both Philadelphia and Richmond, Virginia, are likely to hear the issue of recess appointments in March, possibly during the same week.
The hearings will be an opportunity for Obama’s lawyers to rebound after a blockbuster ruling on Friday, when a court in Washington, D.C., held that three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were invalid.
Although the three-judge ruling on Friday upturned 190 years of understanding about how a president may fill vacant jobs, it will not take effect immediately.
Bold-faced lie. The ruling did nothing of the sort. The Senate, controlled by Democrats, was in “pro-forma” (the same technique Democrats used to block Bush from recess appointing) session which is not a recess. Obama decided pro-forma was recess and went ahead with is appointment. The federal court ruled Obama’s act as unconstitutional. They said Obama doesn’t have the power to decide when the Senate is, or isn’t, in recess. The Executive branch has no power over the Legislative branch. One would think a s0-called “constitutional scholar” would know this.
Under court rules, the Justice Department has 45 days to decide whether to ask the full, eight-judge Washington-based appeals court to reconsider the decision and 90 days to consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
No liberal media bias?