Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Kind of.
Here is my understanding of how this worked. The Senate goes on a recess during the winter holidays (Christmas, New Years, etc.). During this recess Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Board. As it turns out Senate republicans set up a tactic where they had some members appear and "gavel in" which basically means they are present, but they don't carry out any business. This is what they call a pro-forma session and they argued that it meant they were in session during this time.
Obama's administration argued that since there were three days between each of these sessions it still counted as a recess and the appointments were good. The republicans argued that this was not the case. The court ruled for the republicans and also stated that a recess must be when they are not in session for at least 10 days.
|
Where do you get the part about the court ruled for the republicans? the court ruled for the plaintiffs, in this case, it was a pepsi co bottling subsidiary.