Not much time left for this...let's see if SCOUS decides to strengthen the imperial presidency. I am pasting only the presidential case, but the others are interesting too. In particular, the former ruling in favor of broadcasters (against cable companies) was wrong and now is a chance for the court to fix that...we'll see.
america.aljazeera.com
Major Supreme Court rulings expected in June
NLRB v. Noel Canning
This case has the potential to strip the presidency of its recess appointment powers, or at the very least greatly reduce them.
At issue are two key things: whether the president’s recess powers can be used only to fill vacancies that occur during a Senate recess or if the vacancy simply has to exist in the first place; and whether the president can make an appointment during any type of break in Senate business or if it must be a formal break between sessions.
In January 2012, President Barack Obama appointed three people to fill vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board. The Senate had been holding pro forma sessions to prevent the appointments, but the Obama administration pushed the appointments through just one day after the Senate began its mandated yearly session, formally ending the recess that began in December 2011.
With Obama’s appointments, the NLRB finally had enough members to conduct business, and it began doing so. The NLRB issued a ruling to settle a pay raise dispute for union workers that had been agreed to between the Noel Canning Co. and the Teamsters Local 760 union. The union accused Noel Canning of falling through on its end of the deal, and the NLRB issued a ruling saying the company must honor its agreement with the union.
Noel Canning then sued, alleging that because the Senate was holding pro forma sessions and was not in recess, Obama’s appointments were not constitutional and thus the ruling from the NLRB was not valid.
The administration is arguing that even though the Senate says it was in session, it was really under a recess because, per the constitution, there must be a break between sessions.
Opponents have suggested that because the Senate considered itself to still be in session, technically the appointments could not be considered "recess appointments" and are invalid.
The case may come down to whether the Senate was in recess. The justices have made it clear that they would defer to the Senate on the matter, with Justice Elena Kagan saying, “It is really the Senate’s job to determine whether” it is or isn’t in recess. A ruling in Canning’s favor would greatly reduce the power of the recess appointment and would set the NLRB back at least one year in all of its work, as every decision issued after the appointments would be invalidated. |
