You're watching...
Former NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber on a DC Appeals Court ruling the President’s recess NLRB appointments violated the Constitution.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
A federal appellate court Friday rule President Obama violated the constitution.
When he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
My guest next served on the NLRB and he served as its chairman is one of two members on the board.
Until of 2010 Supreme Court decision declare the board could not authorized rulings.
With fewer than three members joining me now as the former chairman of the NLRB.
Peter -- Peter good to have you here.
Eight.
There is great irony here in the rulings in the democratic response the White House response.
But up actively what they're saying is this that they that -- -- see a public court.
That 218 rulings are now in the air -- by some judgments they are also saying we're back question.
That this these recess appointments when -- in -- when congress and the senate are.
In pro forma -- recess if you will pro forma status.
That they cannot be considered to be in -- your reaction.
Well I guess twofold one the that the number of cases that are invalidated.
It it really -- and 20219.
That's a total number of devices.
But it's only those cases pending before the DC circuit right at the court will refuse to enforce.
I'll with regard to saying -- -- you know that that the the court's decision was unprecedented the only thing I'm president of which is what that was I should explain.
Which is what Jay Carney the white house press secretary's.
The only thing -- president about it was is that it was the first time that I know of that -- Circuit Court.
Has ever interpreted what towards the recess means in the recess clause wreck and the reason the court did it because it it was face with.
President of the Obama is extraordinary -- exercise.
Of recess appointment authority when he -- just these recess is in a three day break -- -- continuous senate session.
This is why it came to the Circuit Court.
They came to the Circuit Court and where do you expect it to go from here.
It's unclear as to what the administration will do will -- appeal and risk having.
Well all of the legal consequences that would flow from -- further defeat.
It either the DC Court of Appeals of full panel -- the Supreme Court itself.
Little I would be surprised if if if the administration didn't take it that the Supreme Court.
Because you know all employers anyone affected by a board decision can appeal it to the DC circuit.
So anyone who goes the DC circuit will be able to have the board decision not enforced.
So I think it would be incumbent on the administration to take -- -- -- for an proves scared me to the Supreme Court.
And I I believe the Supreme Court is gonna affirmed the DC circuit I think their conclusion is -- -- capable.
And you at one time is one of two members -- on the board making rulings making decisions.
And the Supreme Court eventually making that determination that you.
You have to have at least three out of five rather than just true I mean if you're making those rulings participating in that.
Did you not suspect strongly -- those certainly at least in your in her heart and mind that.
It's crazy to have two people making those rulings.
No doubt really not thought about that.
You know at the time no -- questions the authority to.
That I don't know in question will believe -- or my appointment.
And I wouldn't everyone recognize we were lawfully appointed the -- issue was whether or not.
We could decide cases as -- two member board we had a legal opinion from what from the office of legal counsel -- said that that we could.
Five circuit courts way to end of fourth Circuit Court said we had the authority.
One Circuit Court curiously enough the DC circuit was -- -- chief judge Sentelle writing the decision that he found we did not.
That the DC circuit -- decision kind of came late in the day my recollection is that.
For circuits came first and and you also have some experience worth the idea of pro forma.
As sessions as they -- and this the effort first created by the Democrats.
I under the Bush Administration to stop his recess appointments which was effective.
Against that White House he decided to recognize.
That pro forma continuation of the of the session.
That's correct President Bush decided that he wasn't got a question the senate when the senate said that that we it was in continuous session.
President Obama was different and he said that he you know he could exercise recess appointment authority in a short break and -- you know there's really is.
There was no authority for bad it was truly unprecedented but what this -- what this Circuit Court did.
It it addressed a broader issue.
Not just president Obama's recess appointments -- it addressed the -- practice of modern presidents.
To name recess appointments during what's referred to as an interest session apartment get a bit.
Before we get to deepen these wiese -- okay what they really did was say that you're gonna actually -- -- Be at recess if you're gonna do -- recess appointment that means you gotta you -- end the session because.
Otherwise it it is absolute fraud bakery and foolishness.
-- to believe otherwise.
What do you like it to the corner and I I tried from time to time -- it's great to have you with us -- -- being windows Peter shopper --
