Supreme Court delivers stunning rebuke to Obama: *Unanimous* decision against him
Problem is, when Obama made the "recess appointments" the senate was still nominally in session.
But how could the senate have been in session when Emperor Barack decreed that they weren't in session? Shouldn't his decree have settled the matter?
Apparently the court didn't think so, as in a unanimous decision this morning the court said Obama's attempt to decree when the senate was in recess was unconstitutional.
You need to understand that a unanimous decision--meaning (obviously) that even the court's most ultra-liberal members agreed--means the question of unconstitutionality couldn't even remotely be interpreted in Obama's favor.
But wait--didn't Obama say he taught constitutional law at the U. of Chicago? (There seems to be some evidence that this claim is...surprise...overblown.) Wow, let's hope his students didn't make the mistake of believing everything he said in class. Because he was *way* off base with the NRLB appointments.
Of course we really don't need a supreme court when the Emperor can just interpret the Constitution as he sees fit, eh?
Oh, by the way: According to one site this is the 13th unanimous Supreme Court decision against Obama just since 2012. Anyone see a pattern here?