The United States has 45 days from the date the ruling was issued to seek a rehearing before the Appellate Court. If the US does not request a rehearing, the Appellate Court then issues a mandate. The US has 90 days from the date of the judgment to seek review of this decision from the US Supreme Court. If the US seeks a rehearing before the appellate court of their decision, the time limits to seek review to the judgment of the appellate court to the Supreme Court runs from the date of the denial of rehearing or, if rehearing is granted, the subsequent entry of judgment.

In other words the Appellate Court’s judgment in “Noel Canning” is not yet a final judgment.

There has been some confusion on this blog as to what effect the appellate court ruling in “Noel Canning” has on other cases that were decided by the NLRB in the past year. Some have insisted that the cases that were decided by the NLRB as constituted and found to be not properly appointed by the appellate court to be void without any further action. This is not the case.

A succinct review of “Noel Canning” and advice for employers as a result of this decision is contained in HR.BLR.Com which advises HR professionals;

snip
“What does this ruling mean for employers? In short, uncertainty.

The NLRB intends to continue conducting its business as usual despite the adverse ruling. The Obama administration will likely appeal Noel Canning to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, the NLRB’s rulings over the last year would be invalidated and the NLRB itself would be effectively shut down until a sufficient number of appointments were approved by the Senate.

Some Republican Senators are not waiting for court action. Three bills have been introduced that would prevent the NLRB from enforcing any decisions made since the recess appointments were made. (See: Sen. Bill 190, Restoring the Constitutional Balance of Power Act; Sen. Bill 180, NLRB Freeze Act of 2013; and Sen. Bill 188, Advice and Consent Restoration Act.)

And, at least one employer has determined not to follow certain NLRB rulings that it contends are now void because of the Noel Canning ruling. Prime Healthcare Services, which owns 21 hospitals in California, stated that it would not adhere to NLRB rulings made with Obama’s recess appointees, including a ruling requiring employers to collect union dues after a collective bargaining agreement has expired. (Source: Reuters )

While waiting for the courts and the legislature to sort things out, employers should consult with their labor counsel regarding any pending matters before the NLRB. Additionally, employers should not ignore NLRB rulings from the past year without first discussing the issue with counsel.”

As much as I disagree with Obama on pretty much every policy position, I have to admire his dogged determination and willingness to fight for what he believes in. When he says “compromise” and “balance” what he means is “I get half of what I want right now, and the other half next year.”

We could use a few people like that on our side. The guy must have genes from pit bulls and piranhas, the way he goes at it.

The varmint should have been impeached the very second he violated his oath of office and DEFINATELY over Libya.

Delusion has never slowed the Left down. If fact, I believe it is what drives them.

That would be nothing more than a meaningless gesture, that the left would use to say we are getting desperate, and ridicule us for trying. the House might get an indictment, but do you think Dingy Harry would even grant it (articles of impeachment) a hearing? I think he would show his disdain by ignoring it altogether.

The president is much more powerful than any one member of the Congress. There is but one president.

I suggest that you read WCP’s post that you referenced. In it she states as follows,

“Jay Sekulow with the American Center for Law and Justice argued the case against the NLRB appointments and he stated that the circuit court’s ruling automatically vacates every decision made by the board “from its inception” because the appointments were unconstitutional, therefore, the board lacked a quorum necessary to make any rulings.”

This post, which you referenced, misstates the effect of the ruling in “Noel Canning” on cases that were decided by the NLRB, whose members were recess appointments which the Court found to be improper. and therefore the NLRB did not have jurisdiction to issue that ruling. WCP’s post further states that Noel Canning is a ruling of a circuit court, which it is not. I realize you said the Supreme Court, and did not direct my post to you, nor did I direct it to WCP. I only answered the query as to why, at this time, Obama can ignore this decision.

In addition, you do not have to use caps.

I’m sure you can do better than that.

Not in the least. As I said, only when you speak up do things get confusing.

Now you are warming up. Keep up the good work.

OMG! The message is wrong because of a typo! The…horror.

I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again: This is the most lawless man ever to hold the office of POTUS in the history of the republic. He ignores his oath to “…Faithfully execute the office of President of the United States to the best of [his] ability…” and to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” with impunity.

I suppose a case could be made that he IS executing his duties to ‘the best of his ability’ but then you would have to believe that he must have some severe disability that impair and prevent him from performing those duties to standard that ordinary Americans have come to expect.

Occam’s Razor, however, dictates that the simpler explanation for a given phenomena is, probably, the correct one. Intellectually and physically he appears capable of doing whatever he wishes. Thus, his disastrous failures in the execution of the first half of that oath can only be the result of a willful refusal to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the second half.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It permeates this entire administration from the Oval Office to the furthest reaches of the massive bureaucracy that is part of the Executive branch. Obama makes Richard Nixon look like George Washington by comparison.

He is unimpeachable. Even if the House were to take up the question, there is no end to the howls of protest that would ensue from every left-wing outlet in the universe. From the first motion to the final abandonment of the gambit, Republicans would be derided and pilloried until their capitulation. And, even assuming that they held on and succeeded in impeaching him, he would not be convicted in a senate dominated by Democrats and presided over by John Roberts.

Actually, we need to talk about it more often.

Well, not “talking” exactly, but educating, elucidating, and illuminating. Part of leadership is, well, “leading”, and that means not simply adjudging the prevailing winds of trendiness, and whipsawing about like a tumbleweed. The issue of presidential abuse of power is far more important to the future strength of our republic than whether or not a gun clip has seven bullets or twenty.

If we had effective, articulate, passionate opposition to Barack Obama, then perhaps the tendency to simply look at these issues (such as impeachment) through the lens of political expediency would wither away, and be replaced with actions based on right, wrong and the law.

As for impeaching the “first black president”, it is my hope that we would impeach any president that flaunts the law, commits crimes and acts outside the limits of the constitutions, be they black, red, plaid, or polka-dotted.