Powered by TypePad

« Thinking Of Bumper Stickers... | Main | Policing v. Incarceration »

January 25, 2013


Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Volokh's comment section has become about as useful as Business Insider's.

Jane - Mock the Media!

and that the govt might find the case so significant that it will not seek en banc review but will go right to the SCOTUS.

I heard that too. Can you imagine the pressure this administration is going to put on the court? I hope Roberts has learned his lesson.

I thought this was the first case of a bum like Barry saying a pro forma session was in fact a recess.

I believe that is what they will argue is the distinction. Plus if you look at the intent of the law - appointees are supposed to be approved by Congress. Congress wanted that opportunity here which is why they held the pro-forma session. The WH wanted to avoid congressional approval. There was no immediate need to fill that post and go around Congress. It could have been voted on in a matter of days.

God Bless a judiciary with balls. Obama will use every trick in the book to win this one.


Of course, the smoking penalty is a massive incentive to lie. And how is "smoker" defined? Does it include people who have quit recently? What steps are going to be taken to investigate a claim that you are a non-smoker.

Life insurers have managed to overcome these problems. First, there's a blood test that I believe is used to check for nicotine. Aside from that, lying can be punished after-the-fact. There was a case I remember from 30 years ago of guy who died in a motorcycle accident. His life insurer wouldn't pay because they found out he was a smoker. Had nothing to do with how he died, but the courts sided with the life insurer.

Having said all this, I'm not sure it's a big deal. As AliceH pointed out, insurers have been able to do this all along, but don't bother when you're part of a large group. The real issue now is all the things the *can't* charge higher premiums for now.


So can I opt out of Obamacare by claiming to smoke and then claim that I can't afford the higher premiums?

Danube of Thought iPad

I'm confused, probably in part because I haven't read the cases. But here is my understanding of what went on.

The only question before the DC Court was whether an appointment made at a time when the Senate is conducting pro forma sessions is a valid exercise of the recess appointment power. It was not required to rule on the broader question of whether all intrasession recess appointments are valid. Judicial restraint would limit the holding to the narrowest possible ruling required to resolve the case.

Anybody see it otherwise?




Woody--absolutely-- as long as you go on medicaid and are treated by a West African immigrant doctor.


O/T: Just want to boast a bit about how I just finally managed to fix my PC problems *by myself*, through a combination of semi-controlled testing variables and general stubborness. Feeling pretty darn proud of myself right now.


Brava, Alice!

Danube of Thought iPad

Wash. Examiner:

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., hailed a federal court’s invalidation of President Obama’s so-called 'recess appointments' as a victory for the balance of power, noting additionally that the ruling undermines the appointment of Obama’s top bank regulator.

“'The D.C. Circuit Court today reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience but the law of the land, agreeing with the owners of a family-owned business who brought the case to the Court,' McConnell said in a statement. The Senate Republicans had joined the plaintiffs in arguing that the appointments — made when the Senate was actually in session, by its own rules — were unconstitutional.

“'This decision now casts serious doubt  on whether the President’s ‘recess’ appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the President announced at the same time, is constitutional,' McConnell said."

Captain Hate

Anybody doubt that the JEF is torching a pack right now?

Old Lurker

Should not the phrase "so what at this point does it matter" be rendered here at JOM in ALL CAPS BOLD so as to approximate the screech with which it was rendered by the smartest lady in the world?

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--Anybody see it otherwise?--

I read the decision linked here at LegalInsurrection and find it compelling.
As I understand it the argument of the NLRB was that despite the pro forma sessions the Senate was in fact in intrasession recess for those few days of the week the Senate was not in pro forma session.
With that as their argument it seems to me the court had little choice but to determine whether an intra session appointment was in fact valid.
I find their argument so compelling I'm afraid it won't survive, though it should. Any Dem who could see past his nose and is concerned about imperial presidencies when Republicans are in power should agree with it as well, but they won't.
It is interesting that they rely on Heller several times.


Anybody doubt that the JEF is torching a pack right now?

Goody -- let's raise his insurance premiums 50%!

Jane - Mock the Media!

“'This decision now casts serious doubt on whether the President’s ‘recess’ appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the President announced at the same time, is constitutional,' McConnell said."

Isn't he now pending approval for another office? And will this decision taint his chances?


DoT, that's the way I see it. The Ct went further than it needed to.It also went further than necessary when it said the vacancy had to occur intersession to be filled intercession, but perhaps there was something in the history of such appointments and existing precedent I am unaware of that encouraged this result.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

In the decision they do address the 11th circuit's decision and other conflicting decisions and IMO come out much the stronger of the arguments.

And as an aside quite obviously it does not have much if any effect on any previous appointments made in intrasession recesses since the SOL to address any of them has long since run.
The only way this gets overturned is bad stare decisis trumps good judgment. Unhappily that seems to be the norm.


*filled interSession*


Ah, yes, the dread pirate Roberts.


Jane, I don't know that it would taint a future appointment but any thing he did in that position under the original appointment would seem to be subject to judicial repeal.


Re: The tie between Hollywood and violence:

A gruesome story from the UK Mail where a 17 year old murderer tells us he went on his murder spree after watching the movie Halloween 3 times in a couple days:

Teen killed his mother and sister after Halloween movie inspired him to murder his family 'with ease and with little remorse'

A 17-year-old boy who shot his sister and mother said that watching horror movie Halloween gave him the idea because he was 'amazed at how at ease the boy was during the murders and how little remorse he had'...Evans said he had watched the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween three times earlier that week and felt it would be 'the same for me when I kill someone'.

So not Rush Limbaugh, not Sarah Palin, not the Tea Party. It was good ol' Hollywood.

Anyone heard anything about this from Brian Ross or the US Media? I haven't.

Melinda Romanoff


iBama re-appointed Cordray to the same post. And he won't clear filibuster, if there's any sense in Duke & Duke's Senatorial Cloak Room.

hit and run

Nasty ice storm here. The blower in our car went out recently -- and with a sheet of ice on the windshield, I can't drive home.

Sure, I could scrape it off -- but without a defroster running, the windshield would be iced over before I got home.

mrs hit and run is coming to get me. Yay, get out early!

BTW, I'm getting a kick out of the name they've given the storm.

Wait. What?

They're naming winter storms now? Why in the world are they doing that?

Jane - Mock the Media!

Jane, I don't know that it would taint a future appointment but any thing he did in that position under the original appointment would seem to be subject to judicial repeal.

He's gotta feel like a condemned man.

Well good.

Melinda Romanoff

Cordray feeling condemned?

Not very likely with That ego.

Thomas Collins

Has Steven Lynch been promised something (or threatened with something) by Mass. Dems trying to clear the way for Markey? See LUN.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--DoT, that's the way I see it. The Ct went further than it needed to.It also went further than necessary when it said the vacancy had to occur intersession to be filled intercession, but perhaps there was something in the history of such appointments and existing precedent I am unaware of that encouraged this result.--

Have you actually read the decision clarice?
The court first disposed of Noel Canning's claims for statutory relief as untenable and correctly so, IMO.

They were then faced with the Constitutional issues, which as raised by Noel Canning, were precisely the two you say with which the court went too far;
1. Does the constitution permit intra session recess appointments or only inter session recess ones, and,
2. Does the power to grant recess appointments mean for vacancies which occur ["happen"] during the recess, or ones that "happen" to exist during the recess.

By both the plain language of the Constitution, case history and their dismantling of bad precedent they ruled correctly.


MelR-- Mary Jo White at SEC-- your thoughts?


Re: blood test for nicotine.
How does that legally indicate a person was smoking? There are non-smoking sources that would trigger a positive result, no?


Note who was the one who argued the case, the fellow who by all rights, should be on the Court, Miguel Estrada, instead of Sotomayor.

On the matter of BelMokhtar, the possible Circle Sportif informant, I recall from the bio of Omar Nassiri, an AQ operative who had at one time, worked for the DGSE and the Belgian Securite,
and at least one leader of the GIA, Ali Touchent, reported had intelligence ties,


I'm no arguing they decided incorrectly only that the validity of intersession appointments was not before them and I don't think they needed to delve into the matter of when the vacancy occurred since the very fact of an intrasession appointment was unconstitutional no matter when the vacancy occurred. Cts eschew deciding more than is required to resolve the particular case before them, Iggy/

What does it say about *any* of his advisers that once he gets an urge to do something inside his empty head, nobody seems to try to dissuade him?
That his advisers recognize futility?

(Wow -- the WH staff might just be a whole lot smarter than I thought!)

Jane - Mock the Media!


Isn't the fix always in in MA dem politics? Warren was practically nominated by proclamation at the democrat convention when everyone expected multiple ballots. The fix was definitely in there.

Danube of Thought iPad

"1. Does the constitution permit intra session recess appointments or only inter session recess ones,"

I would have expected the court to say, "we need not reach this question, because we hold that the Senate was not in recess, either intersession or intrasession, at the time of these appointments."

I should say that I stiil haven't read the opinion; can't get it to open on iPad.

Danube of Thought iPad

The way the SCt divides on this one may very well not be along the familiar 5-4 lines. Except perhaps for the wise Latina, the justices are wise enough to recognize that their decision will not apply only to this particular Democratic president, but will affect future presidents of both parties for a long time to come.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--I'm no arguing they decided incorrectly only that the validity of intersession appointments was not before them and I don't think they needed to delve into the matter of when the vacancy occurred since the very fact of an intrasession appointment was unconstitutional no matter when the vacancy occurred.--

They didn't rule on the validity of intersession appointments. They acknowledged they are without doubt valid. They were asked to rule on the validity of intra session appointments and did so.
It's true that having found intra session appointments unconstitutional they could have stopped there but as courts very often do they ruled on the other question before them.
That they didn't absolutely need to does not necessarily invalidate their ruling anymore than the thousands of other expansive rulings do. They were certainly not proscribed from ruling on the merits of a claim made by one of the parties to the suit.

In the retarded suit we defended from my brother the trial court ruled that the statute of limitations had run on one of the main causes of action. Having done so he was not required to rule on the merits of that cause but thankfully he did, which makes it possible for me to pursue my malicious prosecution claim which I would not have been able to do with only a procedural victory rather than a decision also on the merits.

Should Canning get to Scotus and lose on the intra session claim they might very well prevail on their proffered claim of what the term "happen" means constitutionally.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Bench Memos at NRO on the decision.
Ed Whelan's is impressive in that he admits he probably argued the opposite of the decision while at the WH or DOJ or wherever he was in the executive branch.


So crazy uncle Joe wants us all to use double barreled shotguns in home defense now. He says it's all that's necessary.

No consideration of the 2nd Amendment whatsoever is reflected in such inane remarks.

By the way, is there an official, iron clad determination of which weapons were used in Newtown? I read somewhere the ME said the rounds that killed the victims were .223 but elsewhere read that the shooter used two pistols.

Jim Miller

Speaking of wise Latinas, the one the Chavez regime has running its top court is at least as Latina as Sotomayor and even wiser, if by wiser you mean able to produce the desired outcome regardless of the constitution.

(It's amazing the way they have been able to keep the Cuban candidate (Maduro) in power, in spite of the clear language of their constitution.)


"Amazing' actually no-- have you ever read socialist nation constitutions? very impressive documents guarantying individual and collective liberty and prosperity. The old USSR constitution was a Peach. All of those lovely words mean nothing in practice , because ultimately "the State" decides what's best -- and the State has all of the gunz.


Between Olson and Mattis, it sounds like Obama is cleaning house at McDill.




And Olson was definitely involved in the raid to take out Bin Laden, yet our pompous Justinian wannabe will brook no opposition,


Matt@3:06 Shotgun is all we "need"? Hm.

Perhaps a WH petition is in order: take all but a 7-iron out of Obama's golf bag. All clubs do the same thing and just hit a little ball, right? 1 club is all he needs...

Old Lurker

Alice I have often claimed I could achieve the same score using just my 7 iron.

I watched a guy using one of those laser range finder thingies to find his distance to the hole and asked my partner "what would one do with that information"?


David Mamet absolutely destroys the Left demand for Gunz Control on constitutional, moral and practical grounds. We on the Right need more 'cool' people like this going public. I guess Mamet won't be on the Weinsteins Academy Award invite list this year. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html


Slo Joe and shotgunz-- OK-- let's limit Joe's security detail to using Double barrell SGs NOTHING else-- no other firearm. Let's do that for 4 years, and then assess.


So Rahm is advocating a secondary boycott of the banks that loan money to the gun manufacturers. In labor law, a secondary strike is illegal. Is it so in federal or state law?

Also, I got a big kick out of Stephen King penning a plea for gun control. The man responsible for more violent, twisted literature than anyone else on the planet pleads for gun control.

He has been the greatest source of bad dreams and twisted psychoses that no one would have ever thought of in history.

Really, the hypocrisy knows no bounds.


The Washington Post throws out their leftist viewpoints.


I suspect that 100% of the advice that Obama is getting on any subject is bad for America.


When I first saw him, in one of those American Express commnercial, I though, he looks like a werewolf


So it wasn't Klein, it was one of his other drones from Sector 7G.


would that be a 12 gauge with a 28" barrel and modified/full chokes, or a 20 gauge with skeet chokes, Mr. Vice President? Do tell?

Or perhaps the 30" barrel goose gun? And what about a semi-automatic vs. side by side versus over under? decisions, decisions.....

Joe the Gun Doctor....


Iggy, what the Ct did in your case is excepional--perhaps he was pissed at your litigious brother. Especially in constitutional cases,the doctrine of Judicial Restraint warns courts to decide on the smallest possible basis without sweeping pronouncements on things not necessary to resolve the matter before them.

Jim Eagle

Joe Biden. Now you know why the Dems are portrayed as Asses.

If he does decide to run in 2016, I think the field will immediately get crowded since the rest will be believe with him in there they have a better chance. Beside Hillary, I see Cuomo, Jerry Brown, Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Medea Benjamin, Al Sharpton and Alan Grayson in that field.

In other words, you will have to be a sane, rational, individual to participate. Rather Biden will attract every left wing nut out there to join the party.


Ace in his inimicable style, points out that Lowry,
figured out Rush was right, four years later,

Jim Eagle

...you will not have to be sane, rational.....

Rob Crawford
Rather Biden will attract every left wing nut out there to join the party.

Some say this has already happened.


being sane and rational is a handicap in not only the Democratic primaries, but the general election as well.

Go Over The Cliff with Grayson


Dennis Kucinich sez eat your Spinach

Tawana be Yo Prsident!

I should probably stop now.

Melinda Romanoff


The jury will be out on that one, for quite a while. I'll be patient.


How does that legally indicate a person was smoking? There are non-smoking sources that would trigger a positive result, no?

Not legal, certainly, but just for screening. Just guessing here, but a low positive reading might be ignored, a high one might trigger some questions, like "Does anyone in your household smoke?" But the big weapon is being able to deny a claim ex post. That greatly saves on investigative costs because they only investigate in the event of a claim.


Also, I should add, the blood test is before they write your policy. So they can just turn you down, or charge a smoker's (and liar's) premium, and there's nothing you can do about it but go try to find another insurer.


Jimmyk - smokeless tobacco, nicorette gum, ecigarettes, potatoes. (yes - potatoes) contain nicotine but no tar. I believe it's tar that is associated w measured risk of smoking. So they measure an independent secondary property and adjust their offering based on assumption of a source. Sounds bogus to me. Not that it affects me, since I have no need of life ins


I'm reminded that Scottie Centerfold, signed on to this 'blinkered' interpretation of 'recess' appointments, just sticking another chiv in us.

Captain Hate

narc I see you joined the scrum under one of your monikers at the Ewok's.

Yes Scottie certainly knows how the blur the differences; shocking that Mass voters want to vote for the *real* donk instead of a near-beer one.


I have a question about the WI budget surplus... For quite awhile, I have been toying with the idea that the fundamental problem with public pensions is that they are defined benefit plans not defined contribution plans.

Here is my rationale:

For regular salaries, and for benefits other than pensions, the employees get the money/benefits when they get paid, at or near the time they do the work. Elected politicians are ultimately responsible for each public employee's wages and benefits -- except for pensions -- and it is immediate. The politicians are elected for a term, and the employees work during that term, and get paid during that term, and the politicians are accountable to the electorate during that term for the government expenditures during that term.

The exception is pensions. There is some state system, which essentially says to employees, "hey, work at this job here, and part of what we pay you for your work today will be in the far distant future, and whether you get paid some obscene amount relative to your work, or maybe you don't get any money at all, is all dependent upon your relative political clout in the far distant future."

So here's my proposal for state workers: turn their pension system into a defined contribution system. This is attractive to employees in that their retirement money, including the employer match (that the government pays), becomes the employee's individual property and no future politician can take it away. It is attractive to taxpayers in that they are not on the hook for whatever the politically powerful public employees unions can capture via political processes in the future. It's not so attractive to politicians, because it decreases their power -- they won't be able to hold up the unions for political contributions to "protect the pensions" nor hold up the taxpayers for political contributions to "protect the budgets."

Governments, like every other employer in the community, have to pay fair wages and benefits to get good quality employees. Governments, like every other employers in the community, are limited by the amount of money they have in the budget to pay employees. If the retirement benefits belonged to the employees, then it would all be totally transparent and above board as to what the employees are being paid. (This is why most private companies went defined contribution years ago.)

As an bridge from defined benefit to defined contribution, the most straightforward way to do this is to take a fully-funded pension plan and distribute all of the assets to the employees' and retirees' individually-owned retirement accounts. For current retirees, buy them an annuity from an annuity company that gives them the benefits that they have now. For current employees, the amount of money depends on their employment history -- how much would they have if it had been defined contribution all along.

WI is the only state with a fully-funded pension plan, so it is the one state where a conversion from defined-benefit to defined-contribution would be a win-win for employees and taxpayers. OK, not a win for everyone, as it reduces politicians' powers, but even that's a plus for politicians of certain principles...

So, that's my suggestion. WI takes its employee pensions to defined contribution, using this year's budget surplus to sweeten the pot a bit. Then when the economy in WI takes off, because business want to relocate to a state with no ticking time bomb of employee pensions, well then they can make tax cuts with next year's surplus!


Interesting I noticed that the new White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, one of General Jones's minders, credited with the Cairo speech, was a Think Regress contributor;


Of course, the fact the Mssr, Jean Francois, was a legendary facilitator of the 80s version of 9/11 denialism, the CIA cocaine conspiracy, goes unremarked,

Jane - Mock the Media!

Steyn is great today


Isn't he, Jane?

Jim Eagle


Can I ask you why the hell you'd want to give "capitalistic" advice to a bunch of government employees who would like nothing better than to make you wait in line for 2 hours and then tell you your paperwork is all wrong and come back another day?

Screw the public employees and their unions. Let them figure out there own liablilities and plans for the future.

Do you really think they'd do the same for you as a taxpayer?

Melinda Romanoff


Won't happen, the Pension Boards, especially in a glorious state such as ours, are seats of perqs and reliable campaign financing.

Jane - Mock the Media!

This is a start of the cases which are likely to be invalidated under the NLRB:

a) The NLRB’s “ambush election” proposal that would shorten the timeframe for union elections to less than three weeks and limit the ability of employers’ lawyers to challenge NLRB decisions about who votes in the election;

b) Forcing employers in all industries . . . to bargain with “micro-unions” that represent narrow groups of workers within a company (even workers of a single job title);

c) Limiting employees’ rights to not fund political activities by preventing workers from viewing auditors reports of union spending and by classifying lobbying expenses as “representational activities”’;

d) Preventing employers from ending payroll dues deductions when a collective bargaining agreement expires;

e) Restricting employers ability to limit off-duty access to a workplace in order – thus expanding access for union organizers;

f) Narrowing the definition of supervisors (who cannot be unionized) to expand the number of employees unions can organize;

g) Expanding the definition of “concerted activity” to include public complaints about an employer or boss in social media;

h) Asserting NLRB jurisdiction over public charter schools;

i) Requiring employers to give unions copies of sworn witness statements in investigations into workplace misconduct, chilling the ability of employees to speak freely without fear of repercussions.

Jim Eagle


Gen. Jones' brother is my neighbor. The stories I could tell but I value my life too much:) A real and true blue Marine family - every one of them.


Those are biggies, Jane.It's why they didn't care what the Constitution said, they were desperate to get these guys seated to fluffer up Trumka.


Clarice with the sexual innuendo. This recess appointment case must be a big deal.


The irony is that Wikileaks in many places, confirmed many of the things we suspected, including this detail, so it's ironic that Sherlock/Khan, will be playing him;


I really disliked the way that General Jones, treated Rumsfeld, as if he had all the answers, but I still admit that the way the Obama administration treated him was disgraceful,

Melinda Romanoff


What about the regs that Cordray has already signed off on? And all the evils done under the Eeeeviilll Bush recess appointees? And Clinton's?

The mind reels.


Obama administration treated him was disgraceful = tautology


This story at the Washington Examiner is interesting:

Ex-CIA officer sentenced for leaking information

Former CIA intelligence officer John Kiriakou has been sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for leaking the name of a covert officer's name to a reporter.

According to the only comment so far at the story, the Ex-Cia guy "a special adviser to Senator John Forbes Kerry the Secretary of State and former Presidential candidate."

Anyone know if that comment about him being an advisor to Kerry is true?


Bet no one saw this one comming.


Melinda Romanoff


If you're going to cast a porn film for this, don't forget the Rathke Brothers.

Jim Eagle

Clarice and Jane,

From the Steyn article: "rhetorically “taking responsibility,” preferably “many times,” absolves one from the need to take actual responsibility even once."

Any ideas on what I tell Frederick?

These people need to be quartered, hung, tarred, feathered but most importantly shut up and with something more than insult.


Melinda Romanoff

And the sur-vile Stern.


cathyf, the idea has been floated. A couple notes on the WI pension system: 1) the amounts paid out are changed annually based on actual fund returns (5 yr average). Thus payments will be going down over the next few years. Further, use of the pension fund for non-economic social or crony investments hits the retirees, not the taxpayers. 2) Act 10 pushed some (most?) local pensions into the state pool. 3) Since Act10, public employees contribute 5% of their gross pay to the pension plan with each paycheck. I think they talked about going the gov equivalent of 401k for all new employees, but don't remember how that turned out (major headwinds in the press).


Yep, he worked for Kerry.

From Politico: Kiriakou worked for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as a Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigator from March 2009 to April 2011, according to Senate records.

His crime: telling journalists the name of an agency officer involved with the interrogation of alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.

The Justice Department charged that John Kiriakou, 47, who worked as a CIA officer from 1990 to 2004, revealed the information to journalists and that one reporter passed some of the secrets onto attorneys representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

I say we hang him, but I'd sure love to waterboard the M#$%^F$%^* first.


Been out running errands, so apologies is this has already been noted (via RealClearPolitics):

After a three-year run as a paid contributor to the nation’s highest-rated cable news channel, Sarah Palin and FOX News have cut ties, according to a source close to the former Alaska governor.

“It’s my understanding that Gov. Palin was offered a contract by FOX, and she decided not to renew the arrangement,” the source close to Palin told RCP. “She remains focused on broadening her message of common-sense conservatism across the country and will be expanding her voice in the national discussion.”

Hhmmm - also I am seeing on Twitter that an old Sarah ally may be running in Alaska again:

Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO

Sources tell me that Joe Miller is seriously looking at a Begich challenge, huddled w/ NRSC boss Moran this wk in DC http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338889/miller-mulls-begich-challenge-robert-costa


Well the wiki says this, daddy;

Following Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) ascension to the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2009, Kiriakou became the Committee's senior investigator, focusing on the Middle East, international terrorism, piracy, and counter-narcotics issues.[9]

So only when he was a Senator in that short interim where Kerry had been best buds with Mubarak and Assad.

Melinda Romanoff

Flu puts Burt Reynolds in ICU-Tweet.

Mark Folkestad

Here's a good example of the filtering of news in the liberal mind, from the brother of a late high school chum. This is very mild compared to what I had to endure leading up to the election.

"Interesting. One day after Harry Reid breaks his promise to limit dysfunction in the Senate, a Federal Court rules that the President can do nothing to staff the NLRB, the ATF and consumer protection panels until Congress adjourns following this session - January 2015. The most recent Senate managed to pass only 2.8% of the legislation it considered with around 360 bills blocked."


Oh, you caught up, that reporter btw is Scott Shane, famous for being fisked in these pages,

Melinda Romanoff

So let me get this straight.

We're going to get a SoS with convicted felons as part of his staff.

How Clintonesque.

Danube of Thought iPad

"I'm not arguing they decided incorrectly only that the validity of intersession appointments was not before them..."

I believe Clarice meant to say "intrasession."

Iggy, in your case the court may have addressed the merits precisely for the purpose of allowing you to pursue your claim.

Melinda Romanoff

I was thinking the same thing, DoT.


Right, thanks, DoT.


Oops. on the first part of your post, DoT. The Court was faced with the case of intrasession appointments--appointments where the Senate rules provide it is not in recess.. I meant what I said..it had no need to discuss intersession appointments--appointments made after the concusion of one Congressional session and before another begins-- at all.


And so it begins.Not even a full week into his second term and Obama has egg on his face. By appointing 2 people to the NLRB Board illegally he has been put in his place by the DC Court.Cordray's re-nomination is toast because ,hey it was illegit in the first place.Karma has come home to Obama. The bigger he thinks he is the harder he will fall. This is only the beginning
I concur with Jane and clarice: Steyn is en fuego today and sums up Hillary's performance{and make no mistake it was a theatric performance, tears included} perfectly. But guess what? This schtick of hers is tired and pathetic. If I was turned off and disgusted by it, I am sure many others were as well.
Obamacare is in free-fall. Fast and Furious has yet to be totally revealed. These next four years are a travesty for Obama. Pretty soon he'll be wishing he was in Hawaii.


Are you talking to me, narciso? The reporter is Scott Conroy - ???

Jim Eagle


No! We are getting a SoS who should be in Leavenworth as a treasonous bastard with other felons instead being woth $175 millin of his own (how the hell did that happen?) and married to a woman who wouldn't know a ketchup bottle.

Captain Hate

fluffer up Trumka

The retinas of my mind's eye were just dislocated on that verbiage.


Kerry was always going to be a shoo-in. History will show that both Secretaries of State under Obama were duds that just made the foreign situations worse. Also an Ambassador was killed and the Bammy administration REFUSED to come clean with the American people.Susan Rice debacle was a red herring. I think Bammy put her name out for SOS so she would take the heat off of him for Benghazi. He succeeded in that endeavor as dis Hillary in as Steyn so rightly stated "not being responsible for Benghazi" Saving your own rear-end is not leadership.


Sorry that was about the release, of the name of the CIA interrogator. central, and that of his bosses and future employers,

Conroy has turned out a fairly reliable source, after he got through the load of Schmidt that Dr. Evil, had offloaded during the last election,

The comments to this entry are closed.