Note: due to popular objections, I've changed the Post Title to be more factually accurate.
My original rhetorical title was: The Grid-Lockers vs the Rights of Workers to be Decided by The Supremes soon
I hope you can give me a few minutes, since I'd like to put something on your political-gamesmanship radar.
It seems the workers of America about to lose out again -- and the GOP will be going to extra lengths to ensure it happens.
Workers' rights under fire in Supreme Court
by Mark Gruenberg, peoplesworld.org -- Jan 2 2014
[...]
That one, Noel Canning vs. NLRB [National Labor Relations Board], goes to the very heart of workers' rights, because it questions if the board has the power -- and the right -- to enforce labor laws.
Noel Canning involves a Washington state firm that sued the NLRB in lower courts, and won at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C., often called the nation's second highest court, by arguing that the board itself was illegally appointed.
The firm got a GOP-named appellate majority to agree that two of the three sitting NLRB members who ruled in its case, involving its labor law-breaking in a contest with Teamsters Local 760, were illegal "recess appointees." Thus, the GOP-named judges said, the board's decision against the firm was illegal, too. And so are 1,000 other NLRB rulings, Noel Canning and its Republican allies contend.
[...]
But here's the kicker,
the GOP Senators get to plead their recess-gridlock-case
directly to the Supreme Court, when the Supremes rule on Noel Canning vs. NLRB sometime this month.
I suspect though, that the terms "gridlock" and "obstruction" will not be among their many Appointment-stonewalling reasons.
Supreme Court to Hear Republican Senators in Separation of Powers Case
Experts suggest GOP testimony could sway the court
by Bill McMorris, freebeacon.com -- Dec 11, 2013
[...]
When the Supreme Court convenes to hear oral arguments in NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] v. Noel Canning, a coalition of 45 Senate Republicans will have 15 minutes to make their case. The court’s willingness to grant them the time came as no surprise to several veteran labor attorneys who spoke with the Washington Free Beacon.
“The case is already elevated as the greatest separation of powers case in 100 years, but hearing from actual senators adds to the clash between the Senate and the ‘Constitutional Law Professor’-in-chief regarding who gets to define whether a Senate session is valid,” said Glenn Taubman, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
[...]
This ought to be interesting. Will the Corporatist Roberts Court rule in favor of more status-quo Corporate welching, or will they rule in favor of protecting beleaguered Workers' benefits?
Anyone care to make a wager?
To my untrained-legal eyes, the outcome of this important case, hinges on these meager facts:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING -- oyez.org
Location: Noel Canning Corporation
Facts of the Case
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) established the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to decide labor disputes among employers, unions, and employees. Parties first file unfair labor practice allegations to a Regional Office, which then conducts an investigation and, if necessary, files a complaint. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presides over the hearing on the complaint and issues a recommendation to the Board. Unless a party to the dispute files a timely appeal, the ALJ’s recommendation becomes the final order of the Board. To hear a case and issue a ruling, the Board must have at least three of its five members present. The NLRA allows parties to appeal a Board ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the area where the alleged unfair labor practice occurred or to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Board members are appointed by the president and serve five-year terms.
In 2010, Noel Canning, a bottler and distributor of Pepsi-Cola products, was engaged in negotiations with its employee union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 (Union). During the final bargaining session that December, Noel Canning agreed to submit two wage and pension plans to a vote by the Union membership. The membership approved the union’s preferred proposal. However, Noel Canning argued that the discussions did not amount to a binding agreement and refused to incorporate the changes into a new collective bargaining agreement. The Union filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Noel Canning’s actions constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of the NLRA. An ALJ determined that the agreement was binding and ordered Noel Canning to sign the collective bargaining agreement. The Board affirmed the ruling against Noel Canning.
Noel Canning appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that the Board’s ruling was invalid because not enough members of the Board were present. The panel that heard the Noel Canning case consisted of one member who was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2010 and two members whom President Obama appointed without Senate confirmation in January 2012. Although the Recess Appointments Clause allows the president to fill vacancies that occur while Congress is in recess, between December 2011 and the end of January 2012, the Senate met in pro forma meetings every three business days. Therefore, the Court of Appeals determined that the Senate was not in recess on the days the Senate did not meet because, for the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause, recess is defined as the time in between sessions of Congress.
[...]
Here's a question for the novice para-legals among us: If the Senate is always on 'permanent vacation' -- how on earth
can they be in 'perpetual session' too ???
The answer: They fake it.
Sessions of the Senate -- senate.gov
Every two years the Senate convenes a new “congress,” a two-year period of legislative business. Typically, a congress is divided into two annual sessions of the Senate, convened in early January and adjourned in December. On any given day, however, the Senate may meet in a variety of designated sessions to fulfill its legislative, executive, and constitutional duties.
[...]
Pro Forma Session: From the Latin, meaning “as a matter of form,” a pro forma session is a brief meeting of the Senate, often only a few minutes in duration.
[...]
Pro forma, going through the motions, showing up --
but doing nothing.
That is what this Constitutional case will pivot on.
Pro forma -- wikipedia.org
The term pro forma, Latin for "as a matter of form" or "for the sake of form", is a term applied to practices or documents that are done as a pure formality, perfunctorily, or seek to satisfy the minimum requirements or to conform to a convention or doctrine. It has different meanings in different fields.
[...]
United States
In the Federal government of the United States, either house of the Congress (the House of Representatives or the Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted.[5] This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."[6]
Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.[7] They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments. However, in 2012, President Barack Obama made four appointments during a pro forma session,[8] calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question.[9]
[...]
Pro forma, going through the motions, using Constitutional 'fine print' to exert their minority will --
to twist the original intent Pro forma sessions, beyond all reasonable reading of the founder's Constitutional Law, handed down.
That is what this Constitutional case will pivot on. Whether or not, the GOP-Gridlockers sending one of their stooges to bang the gavel in Congress once every three days -- constitutes "Being in Session" (or not?)
As the rest of the stooges sip their Mai Tai's somewhere in Margaritaville, looking for that lost shaker of integrity.
Anyone care to pass them the lemon and salt? ... The more things change, eh?
.
.
.
(... the more they really don't. Just ask J. Buffett, and the perpetually grid-locked GOP ...)