Federal court rules against Obama NLRB appointments
Sen. Corker, Sen. Durbin have a fair and balanced debate
- Duration 8:13
- Date Jan 27, 2013
Sen. Corker, Sen. Durbin have a fair and balanced debate
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
We cannot mistake absolutism for principal.
Result -- spectacle for politics.
-- name calling as reasoned debate.
We must act knowing.
That our work will be -- perfect.
President Obama in his inaugural address dismissing the opposition to him here in Washington and it's time now for our Sunday group.
Bret Hume Fox News senior political analyst justice colony of the New York Times.
Kimberly straw also from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News political analyst.
Juan Williams -- before we get to the inaugural and the president's agenda for the second term I wanna.
Discussed the very important ruling by the the Circuit Court of Appeals here in Washington DC on Friday.
That the president violated the constitution when he made three invalid their words appointments.
To the NLR bay Brett how big a -- I think it's a very big deal and I think that it is going to be a little hard to overcome.
-- the administration decides to appeal lesson for two reasons one is a court.
Basically throughout these nomination these these appointments to the LRB on two grounds -- one was that.
And this -- -- criticism.
-- -- groundbreaking ruling.
That only between sessions of congress when congress isn't in session at all when one session of congress -- -- in your -- the start of another one.
Could recess appointment being made well that's -- to practice has been going on for a very long time.
And that ground may not be upheld on appeal but the other ground which said that the senate was not actually in recess.
Is I think the one it'll be hard because they're having these folks are Renaissance on the treasury I was there every three days.
That they've been apartments made when the senate was in recess not between sessions.
And those but the shortest length of time in which any of those upon him and -- thirteen days.
This was in like a little two day -- three day hiatus.
And it and as far as the congress is concerned both houses the senate was not session so the question comes who gets to decide they -- assumption that I'm sorry yeah Lucent was -- -- so -- -- -- when when when one house of the legislature's in session.
Or that or the legislative body that's a separation of Paris this year and when I think that is likely to be resolve -- -- it against the president's view.
Jeff I think it's fair to say the president has been riding highs since his re election night he.
-- his -- with Republicans on the fiscal -- made 23.
Executive actions when it came to his gun control plan.
Now he takes of a beating in this court ruling which says that he acted unconstitutionally.
In validates these appointments could invalidate.
I years' worth of work by the NLRB and conceivably by the consumer financial protection -- -- bureau.
Which also -- had was appointed the -- at the same time.
Does this friend Barack Obama back to earth.
I think it probably doesn't I think that was going to happen anyway I mean the the first term agenda here is packed with a bunch of things in the constitution says that the president has for years but he actually has a lot a lot -- less time to get things done setting this.
For brings him down to earth a little bit but what they're trying to talk about right now and the west wing is how to prioritize things.
And have all these issues going on and this court ruling I'm surprised everyone and it really throws a wrench in things in terms of what they want to get done but.
I think he was going to to come down to earth anyway and this publication of it.
This court ruling in the context of the president's inaugural address we just heard a clip of that.
And and what seems to be a very ambitious agenda and to the degree that he talked about compromise.
And -- talk about compromise and his re election.
It's basically on his terms -- I don't think this brings -- back on earth because this is the strategy executive power and has been ever -- the Republicans.
Took back the house two years ago they want to accomplish anything it has to be done -- auspices of the White House and he reminded all of us that in his inaugural by basically saying we gotta get it done and I'll get it done by hook or -- and that's what he's done.
You know I don't -- they closed their jets and all I mean think about this is how they have operated for two years.
You know that congress doesn't pass the DREAM -- so the president issues an executive order basically putting it into place.
They don't he doesn't necessarily agree with marijuana laws and so the federal -- -- -- drug laws and so they just don't prosecute in court.
They don't defended defense of marriage act in court they basically just -- executive power.
Easy NLRB to impose issues that they can't get congress to pass that versions of -- -- for instance the use the EPA.
Did you cap and trade bill that they can't get through congress this is what he's going to do over the next two years with the further ambition.
Of trying to make sure that the Republicans lose -- house in which case he will have control over customers want.
I think that's right I think that what you're seeing here is a response to political gridlock.
What we're talking about in the case that the court ruled on I think it was PepsiCo -- Butler is vs their union.
Is that the Republicans really do not like the decisions that would come from -- Denver democratic appointees on the national labor relations.
And so they were so they they do not want that board to function I remember these agencies have been created by congress Chris there are legitimate agencies.
But they are non functional if you don't have people to run them and so you had eight.
Minority in the senate and then the house basically.
To stop the functioning of government aid that is -- There's not a constitution -- analysis of the yet I think this is eight up -- powers issue you know because what's gonna have.
Happen is the Supreme Court I think gonna have to rule is this a legitimate exercise of congressional power.
We've seen as -- you don't set a minute ago that presidents Republicans and Democrats have exercise recess appointment powers for years.
That's nothing new in this in this town the difference here -- you recess but the difference here is they intentionally create a sham.
A shadow which they say you know created a sham and the Democrats know Democrats had no practice.
-- that the Democrats started it in 2000 settlement Harry Reid.
Right block George W.
Bush George W.
Bush never challenged that's correct and -- -- George W Bush's lawyers wrote recently in the newspapers that this is presidential power the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments -- and they are not actually not dispute.
What's in dispute here.
Is whether the senate was actually in recess and the question comes who gets to decide whether the senate in recess the senate or the president.
And -- -- the -- and you also to put this in broader context of the things that was left and things had done during his during that during and there was no they weren't in town.
They -- Intel they could not consider -- nomination because they weren't here.
The thing about this though putting a broader context the more interesting aspect of this ruling was them dialing that's way way back and saying in fact -- you look at the constitution.
You can't even if you're president hold out these recess appointment.
And then make them finally put them forward when the senate is in recess the recent sexually -- to happen yeah well the senate -- -- In a little bit of time we have left what do you think of this of the Republican argument you heard it from the John Boehner clip that we played for the senators.
That this president doesn't just want to beat.
The Republicans and have his way that in some sense he wants and highlight the Republicans divide the Republicans.
As he said consigned them to the dustbin of history if you -- you see.
A more aggressive thing here than presidents usually -- against the opposition.
I'm not sure it's more aggressive than other presence of everything -- more aggressive than this president has sat there is some truth of the fact is trying to break the backs of some Republicans.
With a gun control for example he's trying to and separate this.
Republican unity that's really been pretty strong during your first term is trying to appeal some people back but I'm not sure it's any.
Powerful or authoritative and other presidents have done with the opposition -- did it also would tax -- he did hit it.