A. “Buried in the middle of the penultimate paragraph.”
Q. “Where, amid a long rant against the D.C. Circuit’s decision striking down most recess appointments by the President (“A Court Upholds Republican Chicanery”), would you expect the Times to concede that the practice of holding pro forma sessions to stymie such appointments was pioneered under Democratic Senate rule as a way of restraining President George W. Bush?
No prizes, as distinct from amusement value, in demonstrating what the New York Times thought of the practice back then.
More on the Canning v. NLRB decision: Trevor Burrus/Cato, massive link roundup at How Appealing, John Elwood, Point of Law roundtable, Michael Fox/Employer’s Lawyer (implications for NLRB), @markcalabria (implications for Richard Cordray CFPB appointment), Michael Greve, Mike Rappaport.
2 Comments
Wally,
I’ll tell you basically the same thing I told Ted Frank when he objected to another New York Times story a while back — I think it’s quaint that you seem to believe that the Times still can be shamed back to editorial integrity.
[…] Yorker’s readers deserve a better law analyst than Jeffrey Toobin? In his rant against the Canning decision, notes Ed Whelan, “Toobin asserts that there has never before been a ‘legal […]