Oh, will the injustice never end? Libs are all broken up over the DC Circuit’s Court of Appeals’ ruling that Obama’s non-recess “recess” appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. Scott LeMieux, who posts at the über-lefty Lawyers, Guns & Money blog (along with the illustrious Erik Loomis), channeled his outrageous outrage into a delightful little piece condemning the ruling as “classic ‘hack originalism for dummies.'” And lest you think he’s not serious …


Thuper-therial, you guys!


  • http://twitter.com/stupid_republic Stupid Republic

    Neoconfederate? What other insulting terms can the left attach the prefix “neo-” to in order to smear the right?





    How about these neosittingdowntopee losers learn how Senate rules and the Constitution work before running their mouths and Twitter fingers.

    • $24647834


      • nc


    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

      Neolithic-Their simple minds and inability to grasp complexity make it especially fitting for the leftist lamentations

    • jb

      neonatal, but I think they’re trying to eliminate that one

      • Horologium (fka Ron)

        This is the definitive thread winner.

  • Fire and Adjust!

    Pepe’ le mieux labels circuit court judges as “neoconfederate”…………….. Meanwhile, Ruth Bader Ginsburger [sic] says this Union’s constitution is old, outdated, and would instead look to South Africa’s constitution.

    • $24647834

      Since every Constitution written in World history since 1800 (save Liberia) does find our Constitution unworkable, she may have a point. Try to keep your butthurt from realizing that America’s combination of Constitutional rules is buttressed by institutions which theFounders did not foresee and which help maintain checks and balances

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        A) Which country’s have found our Constitutional “unworkable”? Which countries tried to implement our Constitution in its totality? Why should we care what other sovereign nations think of our governing foundation?

        B) Here is the definition of buttressed: 1. A structure, usually brick or stone, built against a wall for support or reinforcement.
        2. Something resembling a buttress, as:
        a. The flared base of certain tree trunks.
        b. A horny growth on the heel of a horse’s hoof.
        3. Something that serves to support, prop, or reinforce
        tr.v. but·tressed, but·tress·ing, but·tress·es
        1. To support or reinforce with a buttress.

        Are you saying that the Constitution is supported by something that the Founders did not anticipate but still provides assurances of checks and balances? What would that be, in your opinion? Are appellate and federal courts not explicitly mentioned in the constitution and justified in the federalist papers?

        • $24647834

          Yes. The party system is the obvious one, which the Founders, especially Washington, not only did not foresee, but actively worked against it when it did develop. The party system is so ingrained with our system of governance that it creates guarantees on checks on balances.

          There are a ton of things (a adversarial press, judicial review, the telegraph, party primaries, etc) that the Founders could not see. The were just guys after all and, lucky for us they created a vague flexible government which has withstood many interpretations

        • $24647834

          As to question #1, no country has ever adopted a mirror of our Constitution. Their Constitutions are almost uniformly a Parliamentary system based on proportional representation. We lucked into our system (you may have noted its early years were a bit rocky with all the nullification and secession and then, finally, a civil war).

          As to your last questions, I was responding to the dude taking a shot of Justice Ginsburg, who knows more about freedom and equality than any ten posters on this site. If you don’t care what 6.7 billion out of 7 billion think, then bully for you. I happen to think that America is not a magical place where smarter, better people are born, but that’s just me. Our system of government has flaws and needs work, but it always has and always will. (For instance, right now, your conservative Republican legislatures are trying to make sure people in Michigan and Pennsylvania have less say in who the next President…if you can’t beat ’em, then cheat. Personally, I think we need more democracy, not less, but the Constitution allows Pennsylvania’s legislature to screw Pennsylvania and national voters. I think that needs reformed.)

      • Fire and Adjust!

        And yet we find our country, one of if not the greatest in history, continuing to function with “an unworkable document” just fine when it is followed and not ignored in lieu of executive orders or bastardized interpretations…. The lesser minds in other countries and people such as yourself in this country may find it unworkable, but those of us with rational reasoning abilities find it just fine

        • $24647834

          Dumbest thing typed on the internet today. Executive orders, recess appointments, pocket vetoes are as old as the nation itself. You don’t know your own history or government, yet you think you do. Congrats

      • SDN

        Which institutions would those be? Collectives?

      • $24647834

        By the way, I found another last night in my reading of Battle Cry of Freedom. The Confederate Constitution was also modeled on ours. Didn’t really work out for them too well.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Obviously we’re only supposed to respect judges’ decisions when they benefit the Left. (/sarcasm)

    • $24647834

      Maybe the law should be neutral in these disputes? Or, maybe a decision over-turning two centuries of precedent should not be so loved by the right (since they dislike “activism” so much). Maybe, a decision which invalidates several Bush recess appointees, including a Federal judge, is sort of silly?

      Or, maybe we should read it only in a partisan lens of what’s okay for right now, because the next Republican President will not be interested in staffing government agencies?

  • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

    And we say leftards have no sense of humor. . . honestly, this is laughingly painful. You couldn’t make it up if you tried. It’s very simple, little idiots — it is impossible to make “recess appointments” when there is no “recess.”

  • Jack Deth

    “Neoconfederate”….. Really? Honest to God? Love you long time. No BS?

    That term is so lofty and oxygen deprived, I doubt Mr.Lemieux realizes how lame, pitiful and woefully ignorant he sounds bleating it.

    So if the DC Circuit, both Republicans and Democrats are “Neoconfederate” and passed an unanimous decision.

    Does that make Michelle Obama “NeoRomulan”?

    • SDN

      I would use Neo-Wookie, but Ace would have the vapors…

  • ice9

    uh…recommend you read the post you’re gassing about. It’s full of evidence, examples, and law. Plus Sentelle’s history of hackish behavior is, well, a history.

    Anyway, this will be convenient next time a libtard judge invalidates something done by a Republican executive, unless for some reason the definition of ‘hack’ is somehow variable as to party.


    • Dain Q. Gore

      That’s easily explained. It’s harder to read a solidly objective point being made in that article through all the name-calling and op-ed on what law is “supposed” to do while disregarding the exceptional cases.

  • icowrich

    This shouldn’t bother a liberal at all. After all, Republican presidents use recess appointments way more than Dems do. What this means is that the Senate will have more power over a future GOP president. It’s all about the long game.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

      The entire point of the rebuke was that Congress was not adjourned for recess when the appointment was made. Isn’t it a tad intellectually sloppy to type a comment when you have not read the facts first?

      • SDN

        Jillian, facts are Kryptonite to Copperheads.

      • icowrich

        Jillane: Well, one GOP Congressman was sent to gavel in and gavel out every three days so they could argue they are still in session. Even if SCOTUS agrees that this means there was no recess, my whole point is that the Dems will have the same weapon the next time a Republican takes office. Since Republicans use recess appointments way more than Democrats (and since the Senate leans blue), this is a long term advantage for the Dems.

  • Dain Q. Gore

    Forbid the fact that someone in high gov’t office has to go through a specific, extremely limited–and not always successful–process to get a job. if you read the history, objectively, you will find that Recess Appointments are not a carte blanche. “Intracession recess” versus “Intercession recess” appointments have often been put into question, and many appointments are made as a result of, or response to, filibuster (that other tried and true tradition that is now apparently anathema) .

    Compare these examples (ripped from wiki):

    Three and a half weeks before the end of his presidency, Clinton used the recess appointment power to place Roger L. Gregory on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Gregory was the first African-American to serve on that court. This was the first time since President Carter that the recess appointment procedure had been used to select someone to an Article III judgeship. The office had been vacant for close to a decade since it had been created. After the Senate declined to take up Gregory’s nomination, and the 2000 Presidential election was over, Clinton installed Gregory on the Fourth Circuit on December 27, 2000. Gregory’s recess appointment would have lasted until the Senate recessed at the end of 2001. He was renominated by President George W. Bush on May 9, 2001, and on July 20, 2001, the Senate confirmed Judge Gregory.

    The appointment of Gregory raised questions about the meaning of the Recess Clause, Senate prerogatives, and the opportunity of a litigant in federal court to have a case handled by a judge with full independence. The constitutional questions involved are still unresolved and were discussed in a report by the Congressional Research Service.

    On August 1, 2005, Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations.Bolton had also been the subject of a Senate filibuster. The filibuster concerned documents that the White House refused to release, which Democrats suggested may contain proof of Bolton’s abusive treatment and coercion of staff members or of his improper use of National Security Agency communications intercepts regarding U.S. citizens. Having failed to win Senate confirmation, he resigned his office in December 2006 concurrently with the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

    On January 4, 2012, Barack Obama appointed Richard Cordray to serve as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board. Obama characterized these as recess appointments despite the fact that the Senate was still technically in session.The constitutionality of these appointments was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.[28] On January 25, 2013 the appointments were ruled unconstitutional.[29] Additionally, because the appointments were not valid, the D.C. Circuit court held that the challenged Board order which was before the case was also invalid for lack of a three-member quorum.

  • RblDiver

    I dunno, seeing how Congress acts like they’re on a giant playground all the time, maybe that’s how Obama interpreted “recess.”

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Worth mentioning to these serious people that 2 of the 3 judges involved were appointed by a Dem congress. The third got confirmed in ’05 with votes from Hillary the Callous, Kerry The Traitor, and Barry The Dog Eater

    • Atticus Dogsbody

      Good of you to point out that it’s not the Dems who are systematically refusing to consider Presidential nominees.

      P.S. There’s some good eatin’ in a dog. Tastes like mutton.

  • traffic_robot

    Well, leave it to another dough-faced, do-nothing lib to add yet another useless term to the lexicon. No better way to celebrate the diversity of this country than to create one more label for people he doesn’t like. That’s great. I’m sure he and his buddies shared a round of “UP TOP!” afterwards.

    • SDN

      Oh, it didn’t create it; they’ve been using it since at least 2001. And it’s truly ironic since the Democratic Party has always been pro-slavery, from plantation to collective. Just call them Copperheads and load snakeshot.

  • 1SkepticalChick

    That word “the” throws them every time ’cause, (all together now!), words are haaaarrd!

  • captaingrumpy

    suposed to be a professor of law.LISTEN TO WHAT YOU SAY. The law is the law.

  • captaingrumpy

    suposed to be a professor of law.LISTEN TO WHAT YOU SAY. The law is the law.

  • armst

    how about NEOOBAMA…..prounced NERO Obama…he fiddles while America burns.