Looks like Obama's appointment were illegal

ChesusRice said:
Mark G. Pearce, the N.L.R.B.’s chairman, said the board “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” He noted that similar questions about the recess appointments had been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals. Among the decisions that could be vacated are three recent rulings in which the board has assumed a powerful role in telling companies that they cannot issue blanket prohibitions on what their employees can say on Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

Awesome
Winter woman is all for Corporate facism

Cheer on WW maybe your employer will decide large women shouold get paid less and the NLRB wont be able to help you out
Click to expand...

Well since he is a lawyer I would expect Obama to know what the rules are. Nice try on the NLRB, they have been helping people for years not just now because of Obama. I truly find the use of a union lawyer to head the NLRB is disgusting.
 
Winter Woman said:
Well since he is a lawyer I would expect Obama to know what the rules are. Nice try on the NLRB, they have been helping people for years not just now because of Obama. I truly find the use of a union lawyer to head the NLRB is disgusting.
Click to expand...
Why because the NLRB doesnt decide on issues that impact you and your employer like equal pay, job discrimination employee termination?

Or you just dont have a job and you complain about people on welfare?
 
ChesusRice said:
Mark G. Pearce, the N.L.R.B.’s chairman, said the board “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” He noted that similar questions about the recess appointments had been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals. Among the decisions that could be vacated are three recent rulings in which the board has assumed a powerful role in telling companies that they cannot issue blanket prohibitions on what their employees can say on Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

Awesome
Winter woman is all for Corporate facism

Cheer on WW maybe your employer will decide large women shouold get paid less and the NLRB wont be able to help you out
Click to expand...

Before the election, my daughter went on a anti romney rant on face book that included some hateful things about her boss, and her work place......I told my wife that I hope she doesn't lose her job over that.......And a week later she was jobless......I can agree with her employer, it was pretty ugly........I am hoping she learned something from that.......She is back to work now, and things are looking up......

I think there is a limit when things are posted publicly about employee's or employers and effect the work place in a non productive manner .............just my opinion..........nitro..
 
your boss !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-

controls what you say in your private life???????????? who in the fuck does this?

i have literally beat my boss's ass to the ground, and then spit on him. i am free. maybe poor, but definitely not your fool.

people just don't understand what they represent by taking the job. the people working there are the real fascist. i would never be controlled , in exchange for money because it's WHORING, and decidedly un-American. parents should be more diligent in teaching their children this, and there would be no need for a labor board. if you choose to whore for a living, more than likely you are beyond help.
 
ChesusRice said:
Mark G. Pearce, the N.L.R.B.’s chairman, said the board “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” He noted that similar questions about the recess appointments had been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals. Among the decisions that could be vacated are three recent rulings in which the board has assumed a powerful role in telling companies that they cannot issue blanket prohibitions on what their employees can say on Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

Awesome
Winter woman is all for Corporate facism

Cheer on WW maybe your employer will decide large women shouold get paid less and the NLRB wont be able to help you out
Click to expand...

Well, the insults aside, that quote, my friend, is from the fox that guards the hen house. The game is very convoluted and what people say, if not under oath, is meaningless. If under oath, then veracity can be cross-examined. Motivations explored, etc.

Would you really expect the Chairman to say otherwise? It's why we have SCOTUS.

And, WW, you are being Parisan when you expect one Pres. to play by the rules but, not another. The Living Law, means that laws are not made up as we go, but rules about them certainly are. The nuance of what is the boundary of "law abiding" is constantly challenged. That is why I laugh at that phrase.

BTW, It is not so much for us. We live in a world of settled Law. Our day to day, right from wrong.

But, Politics and Tech, for example, push the bounds of un-settled Law. For that we have SCOTUS. That's what soooooo beautiful, to me. :)

And Cheez, the problem under discussion is not the value of the NLRB.
I don't mind discussing that. Though I am under educated on it.

This is about the subtle nuance of a President's prerogative. It's about the balance of Power. Can he? 3 Judge Appellant says no.

It's 1/2 time on this one.
 
ChesusRice said:
Instead, they held pro forma sessions, meaning a member came into the nearly empty chamber every third day and banged the gavel. The idea was that the novel tactic would legally break up the long recess into a series of short ones believed to be too brief for recess appointments.

Under Mr. Obama, Republicans turned the tables by using the power of the House to block the Senate from adjourning for more than three days. But last January, Mr. Obama decided to challenge the new tactic by declaring the pro forma sessions a sham and appointing the three labor board members, along with Mr. Cordray.
Click to expand...

Right, he challenged. That is his prerogative if he wishes. But, all of this negative talk, just turns to positive talk, on the other side. In other words, you can easily say that so our President looks like a dick about it. And they do.

Because we have gotten so polarized; it's as if I throw a quart of black paint, you throw a quart of white up on the wall. I say, no way, and throw TWO black. I have plenty. You have a lot of white, also. So, you say, fuck that, and throw 3 whites, and another on me to think about.

OK<..Game on! Paint Fight! Now, Mr. Rice, what is the color. That's the slow motion color of our system. Some shade of gray. We all complain and just throw more of our monotone up there. It is not fun and colorful, but it gets the job done, without mob rule.
 
Doer said:
And Cheez, the problem under discussion is not the value of the NLRB.
I don't mind discussing that. Though I am under educated on it.

This is about the subtle nuance of a President's prerogative. It's about the balance of Power. Can he? 3 Judge Appellant says no.

It's 1/2 time on this one.
Click to expand...


When one side tries to actually cripple the goverments ability to function. It becomes everyones problem. And yes one side of the goverment is trying to undeu the balance of power. Thru filibusters, legal manuvering and parliamentary bullshit.

It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt
 
I just don't see how it could be otherwise in the Adversarial System. I've been on both sides in lawsuits, trying to stay out of jail, etc.

I truly belove the only alternative to the twisting and challenging of the rules and regs about laws, constantly, is Warlord, blood and arbitrary blame laying, conviction by fiat and bloody punishment for example setting.

We....Blame guns, blame abortions, blame education, blame Bush, blame Obama, but not much blood. So way more better.

In the System, you try to wreak the other side completely. You need to create straw men and burn them. You have to find the Mood of the People. Not so easy, sometimes. No Tories or Wigs anymore, right? Train wreaks.
 
ChesusRice said:
Illegals dont get food stamps

Their American Citizen children may if they are elgible

You hate american citizens now as well?
Click to expand...
So then yes, they do get food stamps. Do you think they don't eat what they are purchasing 'for the kids' with those stamps?

Edit: and you really like to put words into other people's mouth too.
 
Winter Woman said:
ChesusRice, I thought we had agreed not to insult. Are your kids back in the game?
Click to expand...

Why do you hate US citizens?

You do realize that the USA except for Blacks up until just after the civil war have always had jus soli

In other words
If you are born here you are a Citizen

Right?
 
Even in Embassy abroad. And certainly as I understand it the entire reason it is spelled out like that is simple. When you win the war and free the slaves, a bunch of new citizens, they don't have ID. No official birth records, etc. But, if you could prove with two witness of good standing in the community, that you were born here....Hey!! you are in.

So, kids born here, be us, in the USA. Great idea, I think.

Another issue completely is feeding the needy, so they don't become the Mob of one Deranged Mind, I say. People can't think clearly if they hunger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top