« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

On NLRB Decision Nullification: No One For Union Bosses & Democrats To Blame Except Themselves

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2013 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Following Friday’s Appeals Court ruling striking down Barack Obama unconstitutional “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, the New York Times points out that more than 300 NLRB decisions might get tossed into the trash.

The National Labor Relations Board has been thrown into a strange legal limbo — with the possibility that more than 300 of its decisions over the last year could be nullified — as a result of a federal appeals court ruling on Friday that President Obama’s recess appointments to the board were invalid. [Emphasis added.]

The funny thing is, if the NLRB’s decisions over the last year do, in fact, get tossed, Barack Obama, Democrats, and union bosses have no one to blame but themselves.

Union made-failed

What’s even more ironic is that this would not be the first time Democrat shenanigans will have caused NLRB decisions to get nullified.

In 2007, with three NLRB members’ terms expired, assuming (rightly) that they would win the 2008 Presidential election, Harry Reid and his fellow Senate Democrats blocked then-President Bush’s recess appointments, causing the remaining two NLRB members issued approximately 600 decisions–unlawfully, as it turned out.

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB must have a quorum of three members to issue a decision.

As a result of Democrat tinkering at the NLRB, those 600 decisions were reheard and re-ruled upon.

Since the Obama administration has vowed to appeal the Friday’s decision, and the NLRB chairman has vowed to ignore the decision entirely, by the time the Supreme Court hears the case, it could be well over 400 cases that get nullified, should the Court find Obama’s appointments unconstitutional as well.

Once again, Democrats and union bosses will have no one to blame but themselves.

Related:

_____________________

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

Get LUR updates on Twitter.

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • stan25

    The ruling would have a huge impact on the Boeing one. Boeing could be up and running in South Carolina, in a non union shop. Oh man, that would be a crushing blow to the Aerospace Engineers union and a huge boom to the Right to Work state.

  • gscandlen

    “the NLRB chairman has vowed to ignore the decision entirely,”

    Uhhh, until it is reversed, this ruling is the law. If the Supreme Court does not review it it stands. These people really are trying to cause a revolution, aren’t they?

  • edintexas

    The Administration (and most Democrats) attitude is, to paraphrase Leona Helsley, “We don’t have to adhere to the law, that is for the little people.”

  • GreyCloak

    The Supremes should expedite any appeal. I think it would be a simple matter for them to rule unanimously “We concur with the findings of the lower court.” I don’t see how they could rule or opine otherwise.

  • spinoneone

    Well, yeah, but consider John Robert’s ruling in the Ocare debacle.

  • flyovermark

    You’ve got the wrong case, spinoneone. The more relevant case to consider is John Robert’s ruling in “Citizen’s United”. In it, Roberts used the “novel” approach of looking at what the 1st amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law…” Since the lower Court looked at what the vacancy clause actually says, “…Vacancies that may happen during the Recess…”, it seems unlikely that Roberts would overturn the decision.

  • rennyangel4

    I cannot find the case on Google, but I believe the Sup. Ct. has already ruled that it does not interfere with the internal rules and workings of the House or Sen., under separation of powers. So if the Sen. has determined that it is not in session, the exec. cannot “rule” otherwise.

  • flyovermark

    I’m not sure I’m following you.

    Are you saying that the SC won’t hear the NRLB case because the lower Court, by its interpretation of the Constitution’s vacancy clause, has somehow “interfered” with the internal rules and workings of the Senate?

    Are you saying that the Senate was “not in Session” and the exec. “ruled” it was in Session so that he could make recess appointments to the NRLB?

    Care to run that by again?

  • GreyCloak

    http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf

  • GreyCloak

    Actually, the Senate was in session and not in the middle of “The Recess.” The Court admitted in its ruling that this was a precedent-setting case. Read the decision (link posted above); the Constitutional argument begins about ten pages in to the 47-page pdf.

  • Rick_Caird

    What we are seeing with this administration is “rule by thugs”. It is not difficult to imagine the thugs being unwilling to give up their thuggery. The NLRB knows they are toast, but why not try to influence things for a little while longer.

  • johncorn

    Injunction time, pending appeal. An agency ruled illegal can’t continue business until legal authorization has been reinstated. Commissioners should be put on Administrative leave, without pay, until reinstated.

  • Patriot46

    Put them all in one room. Add up the IQs. Compare to a tomato. Guess which wins. That’s right! The tomato!

  • flyovermark

    Yes, and thank you GC, I have read the decision. The Constitutional argument is precisely what I refer to. Perhaps I was misunderstood in referencing Citizen’s United, because Roberts did overturn the lower Court in that case. However, I am suggesting that Roberts would NOT overturn the lower Court in NRLB. In Citizen’s United, Roberts chided the lower court’s decision for getting lost in the weeds of case law, and suggested that the High Court should instead “look to what the Constitution actually says”. McCain/Feingold was struck down because it violated the “Congress shall make no law” clause of the 1st amendment.

    I believe the lower Court in NRLB has met Robert’s threshold in it’s decision, because it “looked at” the vacancy clause and interpreted it’s author’s intended meaning. Their decision invalidated the President’s appointments to the Board because those recess appointments did not meet the requirement of “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess” in the vacancy clause. I do not believe Roberts would overturn the decision, because the lower Court in NRLB did what the lower Court in Citizen’s failed to do – in NRLB they looked at what the Constitution actually says.

    I hope that clears up any confusion my reply may have caused.