Will the courts rein in Obama's illegal recess appointments?
One would hope so, but nothing is certain when so many courts are besotted with ideological judges who can find any excuse to empower this president.
Some legal experts, including those who have sided with President Obama on other constitutional issues, think there is a good chance the courts could overturn his recent recess appointments.
Legal experts said courts could invalidate Obama's appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) because there is scant precedent on the issue.
"It's untested ground. If I were a judge, I could write out an opinion either way. There's no clear precedent," said Charles Fried, a constitutional expert at Harvard Law School who served as solicitor general under former President Reagan.
The Justice Department has argued that the pro forma sessions the Senate has held since Dec. 17 do not constitute genuine sessions of work and that the upper chamber has been, for all practical purposes, on vacation.
But Fried, who has sided with the Obama administration on challenges to the constitutionality of healthcare reform, said courts might not be willing to judge what qualifies as working sessions of the Senate, especially considering how much time the chamber spends on quorum calls lately.
"A court might very well say that we don't want to start saying something the Senate calls a session is not a real session because not a lot of senators are around," Fried said. "One might say that this whole year is one which is not a real session."
On the plus side, federal courts tend to shy away from getting themselves mixed up in these tussles between the executive and legislative branches of government. If the senate wants to say it's not in recess, then there are many judges who would want to let it go at that and effectively strike down the appointments.

But there are also judges who wish to expand the power of the courts and this would seem to present them with such an opportunity. If the courts end up siding with the administration, the president will have been handed a new power not granted in the constitution. At the very least, it makes a mockery of the senate's "advise and consent" role.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Transgender Armageddon: The Zizian Murder Spree
- Jasmine Crockett, Queen of Ghettospeak
- The Racial Content of Advertising
- Why Liberal Judges Have a Lot to Answer For
- Dismissing Evil and Denying the Holocaust — What’s the Endgame?
- The Witkoff Warning: Will Jordan’s King Fall?
- Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of Education?
- Carney’s Snap Election -- And Trump Saw It Coming
- We Can Cure Democracy, But Can We Cure Stupid?
- George Clooney: Master of Cringe
Blog Posts
- The Trump effect: An unprecedented investment surge and economic renewal
- Hydrocarbon-friendly Trump a match for energy-hungry India
- And Big Bird can’t sing
- The DC appellate court order affrming Judge Boasberg dishonestly ignores its lack of jurisdiction
- Hegseth boards plane flanked by two ‘bada**’ women, and the politically correct capitulation tour continues
- Payback: J.D. Vance calmly gives Denmark a real reason to be paranoid since they're asking for it
- Political shenanigans in Texas
- Jasmine Crockett tries to backpedal her ‘hot wheels’ comment about a wheelchair-bound Gov. Abbott, forgets the internet archives exist
- Signal debacle – maybe intentional
- Trump’s executive orders have big leftist law firms running scared
- In Denmark, Americans have become 'the deplorables'
- Mike Huckabee and a turning point in US-Israel relations
- Up is down, down is up!
- Who will thaw the Arctic?
- Do trans people expect us to abandon common sense?