« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama’s Union-Controlled NLRB Thumbs Nose At Court Ruling, Chairman Vows To March Onward

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2013 at 09:15 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

NLRB picketing

Following Friday morning’s appeals court ruling that Barack Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, union attorney (and current NLRB chairman) Mark Gaston Pearce vowed to ignore the court’s ruling.

In a statement posted on the NLRB’s website, Pearce stated:

“The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.”

“The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases…”

Wait. What?!?

Mr. Pearce must be referring to union bosses ‘expecting careful consideration’ with his statement, because he surely couldn’t mean employers expect careful consideration before the union-controlled NLRB.

Heck, the vast majority of employers already know they face not much more than a kangaroo court with the NLRB.

That’s the reason so many employers are having to appeal their cases to the circuit courts these days.

Related:

______________________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Get LUR updates on Twitter.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • oldmanrick

    My oh my. Talk about some people being more equal and above the law than us little people – regular citizens. Bottom line is those cretins in the NLRB believe Holder, the head of the DOJ(Dept Of Jackasses) won’t do anything. More than likely true. However, I’m not a lawyer; but it seems that a bench warrant could be issued and the trolls charged with contempt and hustled off to jail.

  • spinoneone

    Can someone explain how this will be enforced, i.e., how the three usurpers will be turfed out of office? If they decline to leave, what about their pay? Are we coming headlong into a significant constitutional crisis? Does anyone expect Holder’s minions to actually enter the NLRB building and evict these guys? Let’s see….yeah, right, no

  • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

    Defunding the NLRB should be part of the debt ceiling deal; it needs to stay defunded until Obama makes proper appointments with Senate confirmations. The Senate will have to take it up, and I predict the Democrats will be hard-pressed to stop the deal in order to protect the unlawful actions of this NLRB. I also predict that Obama will not veto the legislation; however, he may try to weasel his way around it with a signing statement, although how he could get away with allowing the NLRB to function with no money for it would be problematic for him.
    For other Executive Branch officers as defined by the Constitution, there are provisions in the law allowing temporary appointments without Senate confirmation (there is such a provision for the head of the ATF; former Acting Director Melson served several years without ever being confirmed). Congress can close this up in relatively short order if they wanted to.

  • rennyangel4

    I do not think the Labord Bd. gets to make its own legal decisions on DC Circuit Ct. rulings, but I am not surprised that the zero (mob) answer is we do not like the verdict, so as dictators and outlaws, we won’t abide by it.

  • romeg

    The court that hears the next such case MUST ENJOIN these thugs from their lawless behavior and back that up with the promise of arrest and assessment of severe penalties.

  • nobozons

    I would think that the companies that were abused by the phony board would just ignore it.

  • Tbone

    Obama is ruling like a dictator and the Republicans are letting him get away with it. A such, the Republican leadership are traitors to this country. They are nothing more than the same lying filthy scum as the Democrats.

  • becky5

    This is stunning. So evidently Obama’s goons can just ignore any court ruling they don’t like. I’m sure the media will be all over this (/sarc).

  • OhioHistorian

    What needs to happen is the “we can’t hear you” routine needs to be done on him. After all, the NLRB has even fewer troops than SCOTUS.

    This is a typical Obama appointee with an inflated sense of importance. Just like the Whiz Kid.

  • kipling

    The general lawlessness of the Obama administration and the NLRB will be their undoing. The NLRB has lost the legitimacy of the law and it will now open itself up to countless lawsuits. Republicans should push this to the max and tie up the NLRB. Individual members of the NLRB should be sued for their defiance of the law. Local AGs should push criminal charges. Etc.

  • checkmate2012

    I’ll ask again and hope for an answer: how long does O have to appeal this to SCOTUS? And since this is now the law per the D.C. Federal Court, why can’t these 3 thugs be removed from office asap? Can’t SCOTUS decide NOT to take the case as it frequently does?
    .
    Lastly, even if SCOTUS decides to take the case, unless they grant an emergency hearing, it could be months or next year until they rule. Hopefully the won’t take the case and this decision will stand.

  • kipling

    Obama may decide not to appeal the court case. He may just continue to misinterpret it. If he does so, then those wanting the case enforced will have to apply to the Supreme Court or attempt to force his hand some other way.

  • checkmate2012

    True but if he doesn’t appeal, then the lower court ruling stands as the law of the land…right? I’m sure the only side that wants to appeal is the Left/O otherwise the ruling stands and should be enough to vacate the 300 rulings made last year. Still don’t know how long he has before he appeals…..

  • arthurjake

    We don’t have to listen to the court. We take our orders from King Obama. Checks and balances, separation of power, whats that?

  • jimmyg

    90 days to file a writ of cert. seeking an appeal to the US Supreme Ct., before that happens the US will ask for a stay of the judgment, and a hearing before the entire US Appeals Ct. (en banc). If denied the US will then seek an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2101

  • checkmate2012

    Finally! Thank you jimmyg!

  • rennyangel4

    Businesses should then respectfully ignore any and all rulings since this illegal board was constituted.

  • rj145

    If there was such a thing as “justice” in the USA, this court would enjoin Pierce and BHO to cease and desist under penalties of arrest and incarceration for contempt of court. This should provide sufficient grounds for impeachment proceedings against BHO. Of course the last 4 years has shown that contempt for the rule of law is just business as usual for this administration. So much for our Nation of laws……!

  • sliverlining

    Judge Judy apparently has as much sway as the appeals court. That’s is how the NLRB is reacting: A kangaroo board saying it’s a kangaroo court. Courts don’t care for that usually.

    The people are real. The cases are real. The decisions are final.

    Sort of . . .

    Break out the calliope and clown car. Can this idiot administration do ANYTHING I can agree with? Even Clinton at least acknowledged that the courthouse was there. He lied, but at least he didn’t ignore them.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Not just Obama, but his ideological fellows in the unions, routinely ignore the law. It’s a tactic.

    Why have they not already been impeached and thrown out of office for it? Do we all lack the backbone for the fight? These are lawless criminals. They deserve prison, not high office.

  • hunter

    The pesky courts and laws and that dang Constitution gets ‘em every time. FDR tried something similar regarding a *much* more leftist ‘recovery program and it was tossed out. He tried to get around the Courts and that nearly wrecked his second term. It is little surprises like this that can be counted on to limit even our current ‘chosen one’.
    Don’t tell our lefty friends, but thumbing nose at courts seldom works out as the nose thumber wishes. Has the plaintiff requested an injunction for a cessation until final ruling?

  • albertmaslar

    Government can blatantly ignore court orders and decisions but the paying public gets jail time.

  • harvey817

    What happened to “contempt of court charges”. I would think impeachment would be in order but I know the domestic terrorist inthe senate and house will not let this happen. People should be seeing real clear why our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment!

  • joecitizenusa

    Mark Gaston Pearce? You were officially FIRED on January 25, 2013. Your rant is nothing short of a disgruntled employee. Further ignorance of this decision on your part will land you in jail via an indictment.

  • joecitizenusa

    Holder can’t do anything. He is in Contempt of Congress and a bill was introduced last week to have him immediately removed from his position by forced resignation for lying, hiding records of Fast & Furious.

  • spolson

    Arrest every one of them on contempt and keep them locked up for the duration of their term.

  • chumchingee

    I don’t remember this kind of protest when the board was stacked in favor of business. That was years ago. But I still remember a lot of unjust, unfavorable decisions being put out by the “business stacked” labor board. I still remember unions not able to protect the basic rights of everyone because of this stacked board. Prejudice torward one side or the other is just plain wrong.

    This is a two-edged sword and it cuts both ways. What is needed is someone to watch the policemen. That is so that neither side of the fence has a problem with the rulings coming from this board. If nothing else, the board has to have the “appearance” of justice in it and the rulings it makes. That means sighting sentence and paragraph of the applicable laws before making a ruling.
    No president should be able to rule by dictating “executive orders”. We are a Republic. The Congress has the job of making laws. The President has the job of enforcing them. The courts have the job of balancing law with interpretation. When any one of the three branches of government have the “appearance” of wrong doing then the checks and balances of government break down.
    President Bush made executive orders concerning who is eligible and under what circumstances they are eligible for VA Health Care. He put in a communistic system based on earnings. It was an executive order just like this President is putting in “executive orders” and it was wrong. Those orders prevail to this day long past the time when President Bush made the orders. That privilege of “executive orders” has turned into legislation. That is unconstitutional. Every executive order put out by every President should expire at the end of that president’s term of office.
    I suggest that the “orders” have a term limit of 40 days. That is an arbitrary number. It could just as easily be 90 days or 180 days. The point being these are emergency orders to keep us going until the Congress has time to act. Emergencies happen. No one denies our President the right to respond to emergencies. I suggest they be non-renewable just like you have limits on how long you may keep a library book you should have limits on executive orders.
    I think every law passed by our Congress should be subject to both executive review and Supreme Court review immediately after being passed. I refer to the idea of defining law before it becomes a court case with someone being hung out to dry by the decisions no one really knows they are going to make.
    What we currently have is not acceptable to either side of the fence. It is an arena and subject to the skills of persuasion by very talented lawyers. What is needed is closely defined application of our laws so everyone knows where they stand.
    What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What ever we do with the current administration has to apply to both parties equally.

  • joecitizenusa

    On a totally related topic, as we continue on to Taking America Back, comes the issue of Political Correctness. This in and of itself is a contradiction of terms. Politics, and government, have no standing/place in defining human rights and characteristics. They are lawless here and have no right to impose their will on the people. That said, a group of professors are currently rewriting a wrong. The terms African-American, Asian-American, etal are in fact erroneous and currently in the process of being removed as a definition of race. Race is color or anthropological make-up. As defined:
    a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.
    b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
    c.a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
    No where does nationality or country of origin enter into race. The term African-American in and of itself matches nationality/heritage to color or race. This is incorrect in its definition and is incorrect by assumption since 85% of Africans came from Europe by heritage.
    Therefore, the “hyphenated” terms for description of race or color shall be removed from dictionaries and encyclopedias as fact for they are erroneous and further an incorrect assumption origin defines color when in fact it does not.
    The “humanly correct” or “societal correct” terms are White/Caucasian, Black/Negro, and Mongoloid. Sorry we had to put everyone through years of nonsense like this but it’s nice to know we’re back to the correct definitions that have been there for hundreds of years.

  • 2warabnvet

    All good Libs agree, “Constitution? We don’t need no steenkin’ Constitution”.

  • sliverlining

    I’m with you Bob. If only I could post what I share with a very conservative friend here as well. It would would not pass muster. Luckily, he and I have each other to vent to about this very sort of thing. Unions are a near and dear subject for us both. All kinds. Protect each other’s back constantly. Law? It’s only broken if they catch you.
    Politicians are cut from the same cloth. We love them equally.

  • duncer

    Clearly they are betting on winning on appeal because if they thought they were going to lose they would accept the ruling and renominate the same people legally. The only reason for appealing would be to make the presidents power “stare decisis”.

  • sarah417

    Does anyone understand that these court cases all of them are being paid for with taxpayer money? America we have to find some way to stop paying them. Is there a hacker out there? Let’s tie up the IRS. Not eliminate it but screw around with it.