Obama Loses 9-0 at SCOTUS, New York Times Writer Calls It 'Major Victory for the President.' Wait, What?
In its June 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution by failing to obtain the Senate's advice and consent for three appointees added to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. Although the president claimed to be exercising his constitutional power to "fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate," the Senate was not—according to its own rules—in recess at that time. Obama's unilateral actions therefore ran afoul of the separation of powers and exceeded his lawful executive authority. As the Supreme Court unanimously put it, "for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is."
Or at least that's what the Supreme Court wrote. Liberal pundit Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times claims to have divined a different message. "By any objective view," she writes in a recent op-ed, "this narrowly technical decision was a major victory for the president."
It's true that Noel Canning could turned out even worse for the White House. Four justices, for example, would have gone further than the majority opinion and placed far greater limits on presidential power. But that hardly changes the fact that Obama's three purported recess appointments were ruled unconstitutional by all nine members of the Court.
According to Greenhouse, "Only an inside-the-Beltway commentariat, infected by a toxic politic atmosphere that obliterates all nuance, could have construed the decision as a defeat." I wonder what sort of commentariat could construe a 9-0 loss as a "major victory."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Women and minorities biggest winners!
So, uh, this Greenhouse lady is kind of a cunt, huh? Just checking.
I wonder what sort of commentariat could construe a 9-0 loss as a “major victory.”
An idiot?
Baghdad Bob agrees!
Certain Volokh Conspiracy commenters?
Everything is a victory for Obama in the minds of his retarded sycophants. For it to be any other way would snap their minds like twigs.
No, man, Obama was actually acting like a Libertarian because he was deliberately limiting this power for the next guy to take office.
13 dimensional chess, man.
Meep meep.
Well he is a stealth libertarian after all.
By ruling against him 9-0 they are playing RIGHT into his hands. Heheheh.
To be captured was part of his plan *all along*!
What a twist.
Wile. E. Coyote — Suuuuper Genius
h/t Jim Butcher
Participation Trophy?
Everybody’s a Winner.
Maybe she works for the Browns.
“We haven’t won a season opener in 11 years. The plan is working perfectly!!”
“U.S. forces score major victory as ISIS sacks Washington”
Honestly, if they turned that sinkhole into a graveyard, I’d probably score it as a major victory, too.
Only if they start beheading Congresscritters.
Would it be wrong of me to ask to join up at that point?
“Why should we let furriners have all the fun?”
“We’re just doing jobs the American People wouldn’t.”
“Fuck!”
I believe we have moved on to “sovereignty strikes”
Are those like “Freedom Fries”, with fewer potatoes and more Hellfire equipped drones?
It’s Zapp Brannigan’s Killbot strategy in action.
“If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined”
– Pyrrhus of Epirus
“A big win for the Lightworker!”
– Linda Greenhouse
I was going to joke that Linda Greenhouse is Shreek, but the truth is that all of the koolaid drinkers sound the same.
Cult of personality. Creepy.
Oh, and that reminds me to ask, which president holds the record for most 9-0 losses with the court?
Hmmmmm… this is a tough one…
Was it the one that sought congressional approval to go to war or the one that taught constitutional law and only seeks congressional approval for a war when he needs an excuse to avoid it?
You just have to be a nuanced, complex leftoid in order to understand that a 9-0 rejection at the SC is actually a victory for der Obamenfuhrer.
9-0 = nuanced
So, has anything actually happened since the ruling? Have the appointees been let go?
Christ. I read the comments at the NYT. Time to go vomit.
He was simply searching for clarification if he could do this or not- so he tried it to force someone to answer him. He got his answer. He wins.
“By any objective view,” she writes in a recent op-ed, “this narrowly technical decision was a major victory for the president.”
I guess the part about Supreme Court 9 – Obama 0 was just a typo. Or something.
He beat the spread.
This comes to mind
Speaking of insane idiots…
But upon closer inspection, this argument turns out to be mainly hogwash. As Edward D. Kleinbard put it in a recent report, ” ‘Competitiveness’ has nothing to do with it.”
Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, has emerged as one of the leading critics of inversions. In his view, it isn’t so much that the corporate tax code is too tough or the rate is too high; rather, he says, companies are taking advantage of loopholes in the code that make inversions almost irresistible for corporate executives. As another critic, Kimberly Clausing of Reed College, wrote in a recent paper: “Both the high U.S. tax rate and the worldwide system of taxation have more bark than bite.”
For starters, American multinationals, with their high-powered tax departments, rarely pay 35 percent or anything close to it. And those earnings that are supposed to get taxed upon repatriation? Needless to say, they never get repatriated; by some estimates, $2 trillion in earnings by American multinationals reside, untaxed, outside the country.
OMFG teh LOOPHOLES!
And again, why can’t/won’t any of these morons ever consider the difference between the cost of navigating the tax code in order to legally minimize corporate tax liability and using those resources for developing newer and better products and services?
And those earnings that are supposed to get taxed upon repatriation? Needless to say, they never get repatriated; by some estimates, $2 trillion in earnings by American multinationals reside, untaxed, outside the country.
Yes, like little kids’ lunch money stays at home while they know the bully on the way to school is inevitably going to snatch it. Did they actually think they had a good point here?
Well, it certainly couldn’t be worse than 9-0. So there!
Now, when is the NLRB going to be forced to remove those guys, vacate all its decisions made while they were on board, and then submit more applicants to Senate scrutiny?
Until that happens, this *is* a victory for Obama.
Twenty 9-0 losses. Surely, this is the epitome of incompetence. Hell even the Cleveland Browns don’t suck that bad.
http://www.nationalreview.com/…..oel-gehrke
“Only an inside-the-Beltway commentariat, infected by a toxic politic atmosphere that obliterates all nuance, could have construed the decision as a defeat.”
Say what you will. That’s some nice writing.
Because the 9-0 aspect was utterly toothless. The appointments were not vacated and because of that, there’s no reason for him not try this again.