What’s at Stake in the Ongoing Battle Over President Obama’s NLRB Nominations?
Even top union bosses agree with nonpartisan analysts that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely soon to declare President Obama’s January 2012 “recess” appointments to the NLRB of Sharon Block (center) and Richard Griffin (right) unconstitutional and void. That’s why, incredibly, the President and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insist it would now be wrong for GOP senators to refuse to confirm Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin for full terms on the board! Image: frontpagemag.com
For the vast majority of U.S. history, the rules of the U.S. Senate have allowed a minority of members to delay enactment of legislation or confirmation of a nominee they oppose by sustaining an extended debate.
But this week, the chamber’s current majority leader, Big Labor Democrat Harry Reid (Nev.), is vowing, effectively, to eliminate extended debates over executive branch nominations, and to pave the way for the complete abolition of extended debates, otherwise known as filibusters.
It would seem that Reid cannot make this drastic change unless 66 of the other 99 members of the Senate are prepared to vote with him, since the standing rules of the Senate require a 67 vote majority to change the rules. But Reid believes he can get around this obstacle simply by labeling the power grab he envisions a “point of order.” (See the news story linked above for more information.)
Reid and the Big Labor bosses who are egging him on to resort to this so-called “nuclear option” to rewrite the Senate rules are acting, first and foremost, to quash opposition to President Obama’s union-label nominees for the five-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
An ongoing union propaganda campaign insists extraordinary actions are necessary. The 47-member GOP Senate cause, according to Big Labor spokesmen, is committed to using extended debates against all NLRB nominations. And once board Chairman Mark Pearce’s term ends next month, only two of the five seats will be filled, leaving the agency without a quorum. Consequently, our principal federal labor law, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), will go unenforced.
This is an almost completely false rendering of the facts. Even if the NLRB were to be left without a quorum this summer, the federal court system could continue to punish violators of the NLRA. And, if history is any indication, courts would enforce the law more fairly than the NLRB, which has throughout its history tended to rewrite the law to intensify its bias against workers’ personal freedom and in favor of monopolistic unionism.
Moreover, for better or worse, the GOP minority in the Senate has not shown itself to be especially eager to block Obama NLRB nominations up to now. Rather, the President chose a year-and-a-half ago to deny the Senate a reasonable opportunity to consider his picks.
On December 15, 2011, Obama nominated forced-unionism ideologues Sharon Block and Richard Griffin for NLRB seats. Less than three weeks later, on January 4, 2012, he “recess” appointed them even before any committee hearings on their nominations had been scheduled. He did this even though the Senate was not, by its own account, in recess at the time.
Early this spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rebuked the President for his high-handedness, ruling unanimously that it is improper and unconstitutional to make “recess” appointments when the Senate is not in recess. This case is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but union officials and Big Labor senators alike admit there is little chance the High Court will disagree with the key finding of the D.C. Circuit. Of course, the President could respond to the judicial setback by nominating other people to take the place of Block and Griffin on the NLRB. But he evidently has no interest in doing that.
Because the Supreme Court is bound within the next few months to find Block and Griffin were illegally and unconstitutionally appointed in January 2012, Senate Republicans should meekly acquiesce to their confirmation now, according to Harry Reid and company. Otherwise, according to the majority leader, he will have no choice but to undo roughly 175 years of Senate history through a “point of order.”
Right to Work advocates and their allies are now lobbying hard to ensure Harry Reid doesn’t get the 50 Senate votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden) he needs to pull off his anti-filibuster power grab. At this time it’s hard to predict the outcome of this showdown.