Last Wednesday, the House Education and the Workforce subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions, held a hearing on “The Future of the NLRB: What Noel Canning vs. NLRB Means for Workers, Employers and Unions”.
The hearing began with opening statements that illustrated the out-of-control rulings by the Obama’s NLRB. Raymond LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, provided case after case where the Obama NLRB has overturned decades of precedent to takeaway individual rights in order to give Big Labor legal cover to coerce fees and concessions from workers.
***
It wasn’t surprising that Big Labor Democrats would choose a labor union lawyer to present the White House talking points to justify his unconstitutional appointments of National Labor Relations Board members. However, when the labor concluded her opening remarks saying that congress having hearing regarding unconstitutional appointments made them shills for the 1%, she lost a lot of credibility.
If she any credibility left after her opening statements, it was soon to be destroyed as were the White House talking points that she was shilling. Elizabeth Reynolds the lawyer from Allison, Slutsky & Kennedy was questioned by South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy. Gowdy was not thrown off by the “1%” smokescreen.
Thanks to Mr. Gowdy’s questioning, we found out that Education & Workforce Committee Democrats provided a witness who claims not to be a constitutional lawyer, yet adamantly said the Obama appointments were constitutional.
When Rep. Gowdy asks the witness what her definition of a “recess” is; Elizabeth Reynolds refused to answer.
Enjoy:
Following the hearing, Chairman David P. Roe, Tennessee Republican, advised businesses not to follow the NLRB rulings until the Supreme Court sorts out the legal dilemma.
“I wouldn’t do anything,” he said. “I’d wait for the court to rule.”
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!
Nice Deb 
Masterful.
Nothing like watching a expert being relegated to a blathering Ralph Kramden routine. Especially when the expert at first claims not to be a expert on Constitutional Law or Senate procedures and then gives a opinion to that very same expertise, that she just disavowed.
LikeLike
What our two parties have forgotten is that they are in a marriage where divorce is not really a possibility (think Civil War).
Congressman Gowdy is clearly skilled in the art of cross-examination and even as a Dem I have to agree the witness did not fare well. But the real question to consider is whether he should have cross-examined the witness at all. As a young trial lawyer and recently married at the time, I tried my stunning cross-examination techniques at home. Suffice to say the witness stormed out of the room and told me I’d be sleeping on the couch. That was nearly 20 years ago – today I save cross-x for the courtroom.
Cross-x is designed to to help a party ascertain the truth in an adversarial situation. I question whether our parties should be adversaries or two halves of a whole committed to making the relationship work – you know, trust,forgiveness, selflessness – that sort of thing.
Michael Haas
Port Townsend WA
LikeLike