The first assessment of the decision is an outright and blatant dive into strict construtionist revival.
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 25, 2013
...But the court went beyond the narrow dispute (click here) over pro forma sessions and issued a far more sweeping ruling than expected. Legal specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment power for all future presidents at a time when it has become increasingly difficult to win Senate confirmation for nominees....
The law is completely clear. President Obama exercised the best course of action in filling vital positions in his administration that the Senate was determined to stop.
Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, §2, clause 3).
The decision by the Appeals Court was based in the question as to whether the Senate was in recess. The recess in question was an empty session. A Senator called the chamber to order and then adjourned it within minutes. It was a symbolic gesture only. It was based in a political agenda to defeat President Obama in his re-election bid.
I'd like to know what all this political grandstanding actually cost the country in staff and utilities while there was no business being conducted, too.
But, the question really isn't whether or not the President was carrying out his responsibilities, he was doing it regardless of the use of the Senate Chamber for political purposes. The question actually is whether or not the Senate was in recess.
Based in history there was a recess that existed. The activities within the Senate Chamber during the time there was a recess and all Senators were absent except for the one holding the gavel. Therefore, the correct conclusion for the courts was to negate the complaint by the company Noel Canning. Even if the decision was made to negate the complaint there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court and in some ways I think that was the hope.
The idea is for the complaint against the recess appointments was to reach the Supreme Court with a conservative majority and a strict constructionist Chief Justice making the decision. That may still happen, but, in all honesty once the appointments are voted on and put back into place the point is mute. I believe President Obama is a practical President and not an ideological one, so the decision will be mute with the placement of the same persons and I would not expect an appeal. Necessarily, unless the precedent is considered dangerous to the Presidency. Lord knows enough of that mess went on with Cheney and his coveted Veep office.
But, let's face it, this is about the Plutocracy and that is why the Faux Recess Senate Session in the first place. This is what they wanted. They wanted to blow a hole in the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. It is about Republican cronies, not the people electing President Obama.
When examining the other decisions of this Court, it is obvious to pander to Plutocratic interests and hang their hat on hideous verbiage to make their decisions. So, in all honesty, given the Bozos on the Court, President Obama should have expected this and perhaps he did.
There was another case decided American Petroleum Institute (API) v EPA. I'll give you one guess what transpired. Here are the words and one can decide how confused these folks really are.
This case arises out of Congress’s command (click here) that the Environmental Protection Agency make predictions about a promising technology. While the program as a whole is plainly intended to promote that technology, we are not convinced that Congress meant for EPA to let that intent color its work as a predictor, to let the wish be father to the thought.
The Court took a legislative directive of Congress and turned it into a wish list. Now, either these justices simply love to play with language or they are incompetent. Because the legislation was legitimate and to allow the complaint by API an appeal in the first place is hideous. API is attempting to stop an entirely established practice of biofuels and turn it into a fantasy.
The court decided the EPA was not making the best calculations possible as a simple calculation. EPA in fact took the methodology further in its calculations to a more precise level by actually looking at the availability of operation days of the facilities producing the biofuels and decided there was no physical way to produce 500 million gallons by 2012.
What is there to question? Was there a comma put in the wrong place and maybe a semi-colon instead. I mean what the hell?
If I owned a farm, but never owned a cow, I would never produce milk for consumption or sale. But, if I owned a farm, was provided funding to improve the community milk supply, purchased a cow and consumed and sold milk, my net output of milk would go from zero to actual 305-day yield per cow for 2007 averaged 16,539 lbs. milk. (From the 2007 American Jersey Cattle Association Annual Report).
This court decided it could pass judgement on a new burgeoning technology in a way that was draconian and obstructive. The entire complaint by the American Petroleum Institute is BULLSHIT!
This is one of the most beautiful parts of the Court proceedings.
EPA is correct that one of Congress’s stated purposes in establishing the current RFS program was to “increase the production of clean renewable fuels.” See Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1492 (2007). But that general mandate does not mean that every constitutive element of the RFS program should be understood to individually advance a technology-forcing agenda, at least where the text does not support such a reading. As we observed in American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 52 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 1995), “EPA cannot rely on its general authority to make rules necessary to carry out its functions when a specific statutory directive defines the relevant functions of EPA in a particular area.” Although here EPA invokes not its general rulemaking authority, but rather the general purpose of the RFS program,we think the same principle applies: a broad programmatic objective cannot trump specific instructions.
In legislation passed by Congress with a mandate stating the EPA was suppose to usher in a new era of fuels called biofuels, this court played with words, EPA authority and Congressional mandate to CREATE its own law. This court in this paragraph seeks to nullify the actions of Congress.
EPA concluded that other sources of advanced biofuels, in particular imported sugarcane ethanol and biomass-based diesel, could make up for the 490 million gallon shortfall in cellulosic biofuel it had projected for 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. at 1,331-37. The agency accordingly declined to reduce the applicable volume of advanced biofuels. Id. EPA, however, did not specify precisely how much sugarcane ethanol or biomass-based diesel it thought would be available, nor did it indicate in what combination these two sources would amount to 490 million gallons. API asserts that this failure to provide numerical projections “reveals the arbitrary nature” of EPA’s findings and “violates the agency’s duty to provide a reasoned explanation for its decisions.” Pet’r Br. at 45....
...For the reasons set out above, we reject API’s challenge to EPA’s refusal to lower the applicable volume of advanced biofuels for 2012. However, we agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority. We accordingly vacate that aspect of the 2012 RFS rule and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court involved has little to no real purpose except to reek havoc with legislation passed by Congress to evoke problems rather than solving them.
Realizing this Court seeks to cause problems for society rather than solve them, it is understandable why they made a decision about a faux recess in favor of a nation's needs and priorities.
Being a helicopter parent from time to time once caused by son to state, "Oh, Mom, you are the picker of the nits." Meaning I was a nitpicker. If there is anything the USA does NOT need is a court that seeks its purpose over word association to dismantle the actions of the other two branches of government. For crying out loud, what the hell difference did any of that make to a national electorate dedicating itself to bringing about an economy to live with and hope for its future?
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 25, 2013
...But the court went beyond the narrow dispute (click here) over pro forma sessions and issued a far more sweeping ruling than expected. Legal specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment power for all future presidents at a time when it has become increasingly difficult to win Senate confirmation for nominees....
The law is completely clear. President Obama exercised the best course of action in filling vital positions in his administration that the Senate was determined to stop.
Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, §2, clause 3).
The decision by the Appeals Court was based in the question as to whether the Senate was in recess. The recess in question was an empty session. A Senator called the chamber to order and then adjourned it within minutes. It was a symbolic gesture only. It was based in a political agenda to defeat President Obama in his re-election bid.
I'd like to know what all this political grandstanding actually cost the country in staff and utilities while there was no business being conducted, too.
But, the question really isn't whether or not the President was carrying out his responsibilities, he was doing it regardless of the use of the Senate Chamber for political purposes. The question actually is whether or not the Senate was in recess.
Based in history there was a recess that existed. The activities within the Senate Chamber during the time there was a recess and all Senators were absent except for the one holding the gavel. Therefore, the correct conclusion for the courts was to negate the complaint by the company Noel Canning. Even if the decision was made to negate the complaint there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court and in some ways I think that was the hope.
The idea is for the complaint against the recess appointments was to reach the Supreme Court with a conservative majority and a strict constructionist Chief Justice making the decision. That may still happen, but, in all honesty once the appointments are voted on and put back into place the point is mute. I believe President Obama is a practical President and not an ideological one, so the decision will be mute with the placement of the same persons and I would not expect an appeal. Necessarily, unless the precedent is considered dangerous to the Presidency. Lord knows enough of that mess went on with Cheney and his coveted Veep office.
But, let's face it, this is about the Plutocracy and that is why the Faux Recess Senate Session in the first place. This is what they wanted. They wanted to blow a hole in the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. It is about Republican cronies, not the people electing President Obama.
When examining the other decisions of this Court, it is obvious to pander to Plutocratic interests and hang their hat on hideous verbiage to make their decisions. So, in all honesty, given the Bozos on the Court, President Obama should have expected this and perhaps he did.
There was another case decided American Petroleum Institute (API) v EPA. I'll give you one guess what transpired. Here are the words and one can decide how confused these folks really are.
This case arises out of Congress’s command (click here) that the Environmental Protection Agency make predictions about a promising technology. While the program as a whole is plainly intended to promote that technology, we are not convinced that Congress meant for EPA to let that intent color its work as a predictor, to let the wish be father to the thought.
The Court took a legislative directive of Congress and turned it into a wish list. Now, either these justices simply love to play with language or they are incompetent. Because the legislation was legitimate and to allow the complaint by API an appeal in the first place is hideous. API is attempting to stop an entirely established practice of biofuels and turn it into a fantasy.
...whereas EPA looked to the start-up dates of the facilities as anticipated by the facilities’ owners....
What is there to question? Was there a comma put in the wrong place and maybe a semi-colon instead. I mean what the hell?
Second, API claims that EPA’s projection derived from a methodology biased towards overstatement, inasmuch as it relied largely on statements from cellulosic biofuel facility owners, who in 2011 predicted significant production and yet generated no fuel at all.
This court decided it could pass judgement on a new burgeoning technology in a way that was draconian and obstructive. The entire complaint by the American Petroleum Institute is BULLSHIT!
This is one of the most beautiful parts of the Court proceedings.
EPA is correct that one of Congress’s stated purposes in establishing the current RFS program was to “increase the production of clean renewable fuels.” See Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1492 (2007). But that general mandate does not mean that every constitutive element of the RFS program should be understood to individually advance a technology-forcing agenda, at least where the text does not support such a reading. As we observed in American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 52 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 1995), “EPA cannot rely on its general authority to make rules necessary to carry out its functions when a specific statutory directive defines the relevant functions of EPA in a particular area.” Although here EPA invokes not its general rulemaking authority, but rather the general purpose of the RFS program,we think the same principle applies: a broad programmatic objective cannot trump specific instructions.
In legislation passed by Congress with a mandate stating the EPA was suppose to usher in a new era of fuels called biofuels, this court played with words, EPA authority and Congressional mandate to CREATE its own law. This court in this paragraph seeks to nullify the actions of Congress.
EPA concluded that other sources of advanced biofuels, in particular imported sugarcane ethanol and biomass-based diesel, could make up for the 490 million gallon shortfall in cellulosic biofuel it had projected for 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. at 1,331-37. The agency accordingly declined to reduce the applicable volume of advanced biofuels. Id. EPA, however, did not specify precisely how much sugarcane ethanol or biomass-based diesel it thought would be available, nor did it indicate in what combination these two sources would amount to 490 million gallons. API asserts that this failure to provide numerical projections “reveals the arbitrary nature” of EPA’s findings and “violates the agency’s duty to provide a reasoned explanation for its decisions.” Pet’r Br. at 45....
...For the reasons set out above, we reject API’s challenge to EPA’s refusal to lower the applicable volume of advanced biofuels for 2012. However, we agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority. We accordingly vacate that aspect of the 2012 RFS rule and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court involved has little to no real purpose except to reek havoc with legislation passed by Congress to evoke problems rather than solving them.
Realizing this Court seeks to cause problems for society rather than solve them, it is understandable why they made a decision about a faux recess in favor of a nation's needs and priorities.
Being a helicopter parent from time to time once caused by son to state, "Oh, Mom, you are the picker of the nits." Meaning I was a nitpicker. If there is anything the USA does NOT need is a court that seeks its purpose over word association to dismantle the actions of the other two branches of government. For crying out loud, what the hell difference did any of that make to a national electorate dedicating itself to bringing about an economy to live with and hope for its future?
