The right is falling all overthemselves with the news that a DC Federal Appeals Courts has ruled Obama’s recess appointments to the labor board unconstiutional.
Of course, they are a little less forthcoming with the information that the reason is that the senate, which was in recess, technically wasn’t in recess because the republicans had someone coming in and banging the gavel every few days… A trick both democrats and republicans have used in the past to stop otherwise constiutional recess appointments.
Now let’s make no mistake- a thorny issue on multiple levels. But let’s also be clear. In the past recess appointments have most often been used to appoint someone that the opposing party didn’t like- in almost every case not because they weren’t “one of them” but because they were so very, very far to the other side as not not even come close to representing America. In this case it was more a matter of the opposing party taking issue with the very positions themself. And let’s be clear also- over the past several years we have seen more federal appointments go unfiled then at any point in history because the right refuses to even allow discussion of a nominee from Obama.
Now- let’s wonder into another territory al together. The tyranny of law. Or the difference between the intent, or the so called spirit of a law- and the so called letter of the law. This ruling is qquite clearly on the latter.
So let me share something to pose a question. Many years ago I had someone I cared for raped. The perpetrator was arrested. And the person was ultimately let go on a technicality of police misconduct in the case. Believe me- I understand and appreciate the protections often built into our laws. But I also understand and appreciate the checks and balances that are supposed to be incorporated. The ability of judges and juries to weigh each case, and each accused, on a case by case basis.
Are parlor tricks sufficient to override the intent of a law? Is the law meant to convey an ideal? Or is it only to be very strictly interperted by the very words put to paper?
Another example here. You’ree driving and come to a stop sign. No other cars and no pedestrians. You “stop” but then roll on through. But you never came to a full and complete stop- ceasing all motion as the law requires. Do you deserve a ticket? According to the written law yes. According to the intent of the law no.
America looses something integral when it submits itself to the vagarities of the law as written. Laws written by men with all their foibles. Laws that can not hope to address ever possible permutation.
Many good men go to jail, and many evil go free based not on the intent of our laws, but on how much they can afford to pay someone to split hairs. Our judges and juries where wisely designed to serve as a check on the abuses and failings of the legal system. But increasingly they do not.
Ah yes, a great victory. For the hypocrites.