You may recall our discussions here on the blog and on our weekly radio show. In early 2012, because the Senate refused to do their F^&KING JOBS, the President took matters into his own hands (as many other Presidents before him have) and made four recess appointments. Three were named to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau.
According to SCOTUSblog (thanks Janitor, I am addicted now) the issue here is the issue:
Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate
and
Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess.
In our typical hyper-partisan environment, the Republicans cried foul and a law suit was filed.
(Because that's what we do when we can't get things our way)
During the winter break of 2011 before the new session began in January of 2012, the entire congress went on recess, but using a tactic that's been used by both Republicans and Democrats, the Senate remained in a "pro forma" session. Again, this has been used by both parties for a very long time. I don't know if this is the first law suit stemming from the issue, but something tells me it's not.
So why in the hell would the SCOTUS decide to jump into this battle, at this time, is beyond me.
That's all for now. I see that a decision may have come in on the Affirmative Action case - Fisher v. UT Austin. Standby for the Janitor's full break down.
While we wait, give us your thoughts on the SCOTUS and their decision to intervene between the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government.