Another 9-0 Supreme Court ruling: Presidents can't do that

The constitution was written with this concept known as "separation of powers" which was meant to stop one branch of government from hogging power. The tendency feared by the Framers of the Constitution was that one branch (of the three: executive, legislative, or judicial) would attempt to grab more power than it was meant to have. So separation of powers means that one branch can only act in some situations with oversight by another branch. For example, when Congress (legislative branch) writes a law, it has to get approval (or be vetoed) by the President (executive branch). If both of those branches do something, it will end up in front of the Court eventually (judicial branch) which will interpret the law, and see if one branch has overstepped its power boundary. (See Marbury v. Madison).

So it's nice to see that the current nine folks in black robes (aka the US Supreme Court) can still uphold this facet of the constitution. And the fact that they did it unanimously is even nicer.

Article here. (via Washington Times).

It’s been a bad week for President Obama. Twice, he’s been caught red-handed, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers. On Monday, in United Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s carbon-emission “tailoring rule” exceeded Congress‘ intent in the Clean Air Act, proclaiming, “Were we to recognize the authority claimed by EPA in the Tailoring Rule, we would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

On Thursday, in NLRB v. Noel Canning, the court smacked down the president’s arrogant skirting of the Senate’s prerogative to confirm presidential appointments. No other president ever attempted to make an appointment while the Senate was still in session, without seeking, as Article II requires, the “advice and consent” of that chamber.