Oh, good. Another (eventual) opportunity for the Supreme Court to radically upend how we do things in this country.
Senate Republicans will join a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Miguel Estrada, a one-time GOP nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, will write an amicus brief on behalf of the Senate Republicans.
I believe Miguel Estrada was so objectionable that he could not even be confirmed after that Gang of 14 nonsense. Oh, and what’s the case really about?
The case is Noel Canning v. NLRB in Washington state. The labor agency ordered the canning company to engage in collective bargaining, according to a senior Senate aide.
The plaintiffs contend the order is not lawful because the members of the board were recess-appointed, even though the Senate had scheduled frequent pro-forma sessions to block such presidential action.
So, the idea is that the Republicans can be prevent collective bargaining by refusing to allow votes on any nominees to the NLRB. And when that fails, they join a lawsuit suing the president.
Can you imagine what will happen the next time these folks are left in charge?
The Senate GOP may not like collective bargaining, but it sure seems like they place a high value on the right to strike. They’ve been on strike for the last 3-1/2 years.
How can the Senate GOP sue? Shouldn’t they be struck from this case for a lack of standing?
They aren’t really suing they are just writing a supporting brief for the court.
Kind of like when some says “what you are doing is bad” and then someone else says “Yeah me too”. They aren’t party to the suit just saying they think the plaintiffs are right as friends of the court.
it’s an amicus brief.
Yes, but still!! It just all seems very stupid to me. Now they want to constrain a President’s power?
Bad cases make bad law. The root problem is the Senate’s refusal to do their Constitutional duty and Advise and Consent (or Dissent) these appointments. In other words “hold a straight up or down vote” . Where have I heard that before?
Here is another fine chance for Obama to tell Axelrod to shut up and not interrupt him as he denounces John Marshall’s bloodless coup in Marbury vs. Madison.
Robert Dahl long ago denounced constitutional review of acts of a federal government as undemocratic nonsense profoundly subversive of popular sovereignty and national legitimacy.
He was right.
Judicial nullification of acts of the national government is a stupid disgrace to the United States.
Almost as much so as the existence of the senate.
Both have rarely done much good and often done much harm.
Who determines constitutionality under the Constitution if Marbury v. Madison is thrown out? This is a serious and not a rhetorical question.
Who determines that the NDAA or indefinite detention or drone strikes on Americans without due process is unconstitutional. And who constrains the President or Congress in cases of infringement of the Bill of Rights. (Not that the current court knows the Bill of Rights for human beings. Only corporations seem to have rights. Enter the domain of a corporation; you lose many of your rights.)
The Repubs will do anything to destroy this agency. That’s what this is about. Any regulation of financial matters is bad regulation. Free market.