some play here that we could actually create a government in baghdad that was a national unity government. and right now the maliki enterprise isn t any of those three things. i don t think it s a high-probability shot. and chris, if maliki continues in government, it s a zero-probability shot. i know what wendell said about our not insisting that maliki go, but frankly, i can t see this happening at all if he remains in power based on his track record. in your scenario, isis ends up holding on to a big chunk of western and northern iraq that you call sunnistan. do we just sit by and let this group, which al qaeda says is too violent for them, create a state in the middle of the middle east, in the center of the middle east and a base of operations for terror attacks? no, no.
through the house, and i m proud to say five democrats joined with all the republicans, to say, yes, we should make it easier for this process to take place so that the court would hear a case when a majority of either the house or senate or both elect to bring a case and would do it in an expedited fashion with a three-judge panel and immediate appeal to the supreme court, which could be resolved in six or seven months. of course, it hasn t gotten through the senate. i have to move along, sir. we re running out of time. meanwhile, there was another big development this week. that is that the supreme court ruled unanimously 9-0 that the president violated the constitution when he made appointments to the national labor relations board while the senate was on brief breaks in its work. here is republican senator mike lee reacting to the court s decision. the court said the president doesn t have the power to decide when the senate is in session. only the senate can decide that. when
president may not issue a recess appoi appointment. congressman, 9-0 in the supreme court. isn t this another clear case of presidential overreach? when you face a republican majority in the house that is playing this game of shutdown politics, blocking everything the president wants to do this has nothing to do with the house. including confirmation of judges and of agency heads. the house does not confirm i understand. but in the case of the house, for example i m asking you a specific question. the 9-0 decision by the supreme court on making recess appointments when the court said and it was a liberal justice who wrote the unanimous decision when the court said the senate wasn t in session. isn t this presidential overreach. what the president did what presidents have done since the time of horse and buggy, republicans and democrats alike, is use the power to appoint, to go out there and do that. during the recess, when the president did these
constitution. but this week, house speaker john boehner announced he will now move to sue the president for executive overreach. and the supreme court ruled 9-0 mr. obama has gone too far in making some of his recess appointmen appointments. fox news chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel has more on what all this means for the balance of power here in washington. what we ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch. speaker john boehner announced wednesday the house will sue president obama for exceeding his constitutional authority. i believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country, and on behalf of the institution and our constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the congress. mr. obama has recently issued executive orders to raise the
and even if the courts accept this suit, by the time it gets all the way through all of the legal machinations, barack obama will be out of office. well, first of all, with regard to the powers the constitution provides the congress, there are several. the power of legislation, the power of the purse. we have in the senate the power to confirm appointments, which was what the supreme court decision was all about. we have the power of oversight, holding hearings. but we also have the power to bring causes of action when we believe that the president of the united states is exceeding his authority and is trampling upon article one of the constitution. so to me, it makes a whole lot of sense to do this. it s not the first time the court has been asked to do it. we have a case pending right now. and what about the argument that he ll no longer be president. correct. that s why we passed a law