Originally posted by sasquatch672
Remember when Arrogant Barry decided to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate wasn't in recess? The NLRB has released its assessment of the damage Obama has wrought by not following the Constitution, and a court subsequently found His appointments to be...wait for it...unconstitutional. 1,569 decsions invalidat shingtonexaminer.com/ruling-on-nlrb-recess-appointments-could-void-1569-cases/article/2529516?
This is typical, misinformed nonsense from someone who has a hardon against President Obama. From your own link:
. In 2011, the Board had only three
Members—the minimum number of Members required for a quorum52—with one of the three
scheduled to vacate his seat by the end of the first session of the 112th Congress. In an effort to
prevent membership from dropping below the minimum quorum required for the Board to fully
conduct business, President Obama nominated Terrence F. Flynn for a seat on the Board on
January 5, 2011.53
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43030.pdf at p. 8
So the NLRB wouldn't have been able to conduct any business at all absent the appointments. So nothing was "wasted" by making them; their validity is a open Constitutional question never before considered by the SCOTUS i.e. whether the Senate can avoid recess appointments by having a fake "session" at which one member shows up every three or four days, gavels himself to order and then a few minutes later adjourns. The case will surely go to the SCOTUS for a definitive decision.
Naturally sasquatch is careless with the facts; the assessment released was not by the NLRB but by the National Right To Work Legal Foundation a right wing, pro-business, anti-union group.
EDIT: The President in making the appointments was relying on existing case law which the D.C. Circuit decision is in conflict with:
Addressing the constitutional question before it, the D.C. Circuit issued two holdings: first, that there is no recess between sessions — an intra-session recess does not count; and second, that a vacancy itself must arise during an inter-session recess for a valid recess appointment to be made. The first holding is contrary to an Eleventh Circuit opinion; the second ruling is in conflict with three other circuits.
So "King Barry" was relying on established law. Perhaps the SCOTUS will overturn that law (it's quite possible it won't even reach the merits as Appellant never challenged jurisdiction and the Court took it on itself to reach that issue), but surely the President can make his decisions based on what courts have already ruled.