So, I employed a two-prong approach: First, ask conservatives: What’s your problem with gays?
Second, ask gay people to reveal their “homosexual agenda” and find out what the hell they are doing that scares the right so much?
As a result, the Supreme Court is poised to wade into the middle of a political dispute between the political branches and to reject 200 years of history—during which a functional and practical understanding of the recess appointment power prevailed.
The case arose from the recess appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on January 6, 2012.
READ MORE Arizona Drafts New Anti-Gay Bill" data-reactid="24"READ MORE Arizona Drafts New Anti-Gay Bill“fascism.” Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips even said that without this law, Christians could be forced to bake wedding cakes in the shape of a giant penis. " data-reactid="25"People like Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, and Tucker Carlson all publicly support the proposed Arizona law, with Carlson calling it necessary to prevent “fascism.” Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips even said that without this law, Christians could be forced to bake wedding cakes in the shape of a giant penis.
“the greatest immediate threat to every freedom and right that is enshrined in the First Amendment.” Even the Republican Party’s 2012 platform made it seem like the end of days were approaching with their description of gay marriage as “an assault on the foundations of our society.” [ data-reactid="26"Then there are the influential conservative “Christian” groups who have long demonized gays, such as Bryan Fischer at the American Family Association (AFA) who said the “homosexual agenda” is “the greatest immediate threat to every freedom and right that is enshrined in the First Amendment.” Even the Republican Party’s 2012 platform made it seem like the end of days were approaching with their description of gay marriage as “an assault on the foundations of our society.” [ MORE Hollywood’s Constitutional Blunder" data-reactid="27"READ MORE Hollywood’s Constitutional Blunder Is there really a nefarious “homosexual agenda”?
On the other hand, in a country of over 300 million people that depends heavily on a functioning federal government, it is more important than ever for the government to be staffed.
Because the 60-vote threshold finally has been eliminated for executive branch nominees, the outcome of this case has little immediate consequence.So long as Democrats control the Senate and the majority rules, the President will have little need to make recess appointments. To do otherwise will exhibit a harmful reverence for the actions of men who over 200 years ago wrote an ambiguous provision addressing a world that no longer exists.The recess appointment power was created as a practical remedy to keep the federal government functioning when the Senate couldn’t act. Recess-appointed NLRB members subsequently voted against Noel Canning, which sought to deny a pay raise in a contract negotiated with its employees. The court held that the clause permits the president to fill vacancies only during the recess between sessions of Congress and not during the frequent intra-session recesses.It also held that he could fill only vacancies that arose during the recess. Circuit read it or it could be read to mean that the President has power during the recess of the Senate (whenever the Senate is in recess) to fill up all vacancies that may happen (regardless of when they happen).By contrast, today Congress stays in session nearly year round, but leaves for frequent recesses and can return from any part of the country within hours.The President no longer needs to wait long periods before Congress is able to consider his nominees.To thwart the President’s ability to make recess appointments, the Republican House refused to assent to the adjournment of the Senate in December 2011.Because the Constitution does not allow adjournments longer than three days without the assent of the other House, the Senate was forced to hold pro forma sessions every three days through the recess.Both interpretations flew in the face of longstanding interpretation of the clause by presidents dating back to the 19 century, as well as modern opinions of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The latter reading has formed the basis for hundreds of recess appointments over the past 200 years.The language of the recess appointments clause was first called ambiguous by Thomas Jefferson. It is true that the original purpose of the constitutional provision was to allow the President to keep the government staffed during the long recesses common when legislators traveled by live horsepower.