Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






The Supreme Court invalidated more than 600 NLRB decisions in the June 2010 case New Process Steel v. NLRB because the board had been issuing decisions with only two members. Kagan defended Obama's approach to board composition and recess appointments in several briefs
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Kagan Under Spotlight for Obama
Administration Work on NLRB

Washington Free Beacon
Critics of President Obama's recess appointments are calling on Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from a potential Supreme Court hearing on the matter.

The Chamber of Commerce raised the prospect of recusal, citing then-solicitor general Kagan's defense of President Obama's recess appointments in a previous case regarding the composition of the National Labor Relations Board.

The Supreme Court invalidated more than 600 NLRB decisions in the June 2010 case New Process Steel v. NLRB because the board had been issuing decisions with only two members. Kagan defended Obama's approach to board composition and recess appointments in several briefs, writing in April 2010 that the court "would significantly burden the rights protected" by the National Labor Relations Act if it decided against the administration.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals in January ruled in Noel Canning v. NLRB that Obama violated the Constitution when he appointed Richard Griffin and Sharon Block to the board without Senate confirmation while the upper legislative chamber was in pro forma session. Legal experts predict the case will end up in the Supreme Court.

The Chamber of Commerce, which filed amicus briefs in the case, pointed out that Kagan pledged to recuse herself from any case "in which I have signed any kind of brief" during her 2010 Senate confirmation hearings. The associate justice has recused herself on previous cases, including the 2011 challenge to Arizona's strict immigration laws, because of her work as solicitor general.

Leslie W. Abramson, a legal ethics professor at the University of Louisville, said the chamber's call falls short of existing legal precedent for recusal, pointing to the late-Chief Justice William Rehnquist's refusal to step down from ruling on the constitutionality of a law he had praised in a Senate committee before joining the court.

"As Rehnquist wrote, nobody comes to the court tabula rasa," Abramson said. "Something a sitting judge has done in a prior life being used to recuse the justice in pending case before the court is a high threshold [to clear]."

Glenn Taubman, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, which also filed an amicus brief in Noel Canning, said Kagan should examine carefully her previous recess appointment work in making her decision.

"It certainly sounds reasonable that she would have to consider recusal, given the active role she took on recess appointments in New Process Steel and her opinion on what constitutes a proper recess appointment," he said.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 02/05/2013








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server