(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday put new restrictions on presidential powers, limiting a president’s authority to staff certain top government posts in a case involving an appointment to the National Labor Relations Board.

The U.S. Supreme Court building seen in Washington May 20, 2009. REUTERS/Molly Riley

The court decided 6-2 to uphold a lower court’s ruling that then-President Barack Obama exceeded his legal authority with his temporary appointment of an NLRB general counsel in 2011.

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said that under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a person cannot serve as the acting head of a federal agency once the president nominates him or her to permanently serve in the role if it is a position that requires U.S. Senate confirmation.

SW General Inc, a Scottsdale, Arizona-based private ambulance company and a subsidiary of Envision Healthcare Holdings Inc EVHC.N, had challenged the makeup of the NLRB as it sought to invalidate a board ruling that said it violated federal labor law by discontinuing bonus payments for longtime employees.

The NLRB had argued that the law’s restriction applied only to politically appointed “first assistants” who are first in line for acting positions when the heads of agencies leave office, and not to other officials.

The ruling will give President Donald Trump and future presidents less flexibility in filling jobs that require Senate confirmation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying the court ignored the fact that since the law governing vacancies was adopted in 1998, more than 100 people have served in acting roles while the U.S. Senate considered their nominations for permanent jobs.

The case focused on Obama’s appointment of Lafe Solomon as the NLRB’s acting general counsel to fill a vacancy in the job. The position requires Senate confirmation.

Obama nominated Solomon to fill the position permanently but also named him to fill in for former general counsel Ronald Meisburg, who resigned in 2010, in the interim while awaiting Senate action. Obama eventually withdrew Solomon’s nomination after it stalled for more than two years. The Senate ultimately confirmed Richard Griffin to the post in 2013.

SW General argued that Solomon should not have continued to fill the position on a temporary basis pending Senate confirmation, and the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed.

The case is National Labor Relations Board v. SW General Inc, U.S. Supreme Court No. 15–1251.</s>One of my readers recently told me in an email,

Such is the painful paralysis of making life decisions in the modern age. Gone are the days when you just took over your dad’s business; if you did that now you’d be “settling.”

Gone is the era of believing that, as one traditionalist said in David Mitchell’s novel Cloud Atlas, “no matter what you do it will never amount to anything more than a single drop in a limitless ocean”; today’s parents tell us that the world is our oyster.

These days, fulfilling our greatest potential – not finding a suitable partner – is the most important thing.

We welcome this newfound opportunity, but we also suffer from it. We fear making the wrong decisions so much that, ironically, we often compromise our potential in the process. When overwhelmed with options, we tend to regret our decisions, obsess over foregone alternatives or simply not choose at all.

Endless articles tell us how to make the most of our lives. But if we don’t learn how to be satisfied with our decisions, we’ll lead full but regret-laden lives. Modern psychology offers three ways to make peace with your decisions:

Sometimes we feel guilty about relying on gut decisions. One hiring manager conceded, “I hate to say this, but a lot of it is gut feeling.” But trusting your gut has perks – though maybe not for the reason you think.

Have you ever tried that exercise where you sit, close your eyes and think of an important, impending decision? You ask “Should I do this?” and, supposedly, if you lean back or feel compelled backward, the answer is no. If you lean forward, the answer is yes.

I recently tried this when debating whether to accept an unpaid speaking engagement in New York City. I leaned back, so I decided to decline the invitation. That’s embarrassing to admit, but I have no regrets.

It’s impossible to know whether leaning back is actually your intuition talking, but here’s what matters: thinking your intuition is talking.

In one study, consumers viewed their purchases more positively when “decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation.” The authors sum, “Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing.” In other words, we like our decisions better when we didn’t consciously, painstakingly choose them. We prefer decisions that feel subliminal.

In short, decision satisfaction hinges not so much on listening to your gut but, rather, blaming it.

Once you’ve explored your options and what you want – a critical step for satisfied and sound decisions – make the decision as if it’s final.

In one study, participants were asked to pick a piece of art to take home. Individuals told they could later exchange the piece for another experienced less appreciation for their chosen artwork than people who had no such option. Interestingly, participants didn't anticipate this effect, instead assuming that more choice was better.

In short, even if you do backtrack, don’t tell yourself that you can “always change your mind” when you’re making a decision. This could make the same decision less satisfying.

Moreover, some research suggests that changing your mind at all can be risky. We continue evaluating choices even after they’ve passed through our field of vision or conscious awareness. When we change our minds based on evidence processed after making a decision, we often make worse choices.

There was a little-known third cofounder of Apple named Ronald Wayne. Two weeks after Apple was incorporated in 1976, Wayne left and sold his 10% stake in the company for $800. Now 84, Wayne lives off his social security check outside Las Vegas. Today, his shares would be worth $63 billion.

Wayne’s explanation for his decision to sell his Apple stock may have saved him a lifetime of angst: “If I stayed at Apple I would have probably ended up the richest man in the cemetery,” he told CNN.

His rationalization might sound wishful, or even dishonest. Maybe it is. But it’s also an adaptive mechanism for coping with regret to preserve wellbeing and future performance.

Nietzsche called this “amor fati” — loving one’s fate. “One wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity,” Nietzsche wrote in his final book.

Being satisfied with your decisions has less to do with your actual decisions and more to do with how you see and rationalize them.

When we blame our intuition, commit to our choices and rationalize our decisions, we can maximize not just our potential but also our fulfillment.

Caroline Beaton is a workplace psychology journalist. Sign up for her newsletter to get her latest articles delivered to your inbox.</s>Editor’s note: This is the second of eight columns provided to The Press in lead-up to the Battle of Ridgefield re-enactment Saturday, April 29.

As the American Colony began to separate itself from the British Crown, the Village of Ridgefield had a decision to make: remain loyal to the crown or support the Continental Congress.

A special town meeting was called Jan. 30, 1775, to decide who they would support. Nathan Olmstead, a Loyalist, was chosen to moderate. The freemen resolved to acknowledge King George III as the rightful sovereign, and avowed their allegiance to him, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords. They felt it was too dangerous for Ridgefield to support the Continental Congress. Nine freemen voted against the resolutions.

Why would Ridgefield take this stand? Perhaps the issue of “taxation without representation” was not an issue for the village. It had representation. Connecticut was granted a direct charter from the king in 1662, under which its governor was selected by the freeholders and not the crown. Each chartered town sent two locally elected representatives to the State

Assembly. Connecticut already had a government by the people.

Not all Ridgefield’s freemen were satisfied with the decision of the January Town Meeting. So another meeting was called for March 7, 1775. The decision was postponed until April 10, 1775. At the April meeting it was resolved not to discuss the decision of the January Town Meeting.

At the Annual Town Meeting, Dec. 17, 1775, with Colonel Philip Burr Bradley, a Patriot, as moderator, the freemen of the Village of Ridgefield did resolve to “adopt and approve of the Continental Congress for securing and defending the Rights, and Liberty of ye American Colonies.”

The Village of Ridgefield was now in the Patriot Camp, or at least the majority of the freemen were. There were still those who would remain loyal to the British Crown.

Support the battle by learning more at www.battleofridgefield.org or at www.SupportTheBattle.org

More information may be found by calling 203-403-7065, emailing [email protected] or stopping by Jerusalem 49 Masonic Lodge next to Town Hall.</s>Professional networking leader GLG has produced a new series of videos focused on decision making in the business world. As part of the series, GLG has interviewed a number of business leaders to ask about what considerations go into making important decisions.

Start the conversation, or Read more at Benzinga.</s>The storm was coming. All the weathermen had their sleeves rolled up-- so you knew that winter storm Stella was going to be ferocious. That is, of course, if you believe the weatherpeople.

Every time I try and plan business around weather, I fail. When the news predicts a huge snowstorm, it's usually a muted case of the flurries. When nothing is predicted-- bad weather can come as a surprise and stop me in my tracks.

Such was the case when the news was preparing New York City for an epic snowstorm named Stella. She was set to carry over 24 inches of white powder. As an entrepreneur, I know firsthand how weather can kill a small businesses day to day operations. As an entrepreneur who has recently been on a non-stop travel binge for work-- it would absolutely ruin everything.

I was setting out to speak on a customer panel for my bank, Capital One at their annual sales conference. I LOVE my bank, and would do anything for them. And, in 2017, they became my client. So I was doing this last leg of an eight week travel marathon because I loved them, and because it was important to me to have face time at this large conference.

I was scheduled to leave late Monday-- heading to Dallas and returning to New York on Tuesday night after speaking. I had the questions, and was fully prepared. But everywhere I turned, there was a weather man, with those damn rolled sleeves and excited glare, talking about the storm of the century.

I desperately wanted to go to the conference, and I was terrified of disappointing them. As I sat with my family on Saturday, I debated over and over in my mind what to do. This is common for me-- I'll sit and think and think all day, and wait too long to make a decision. Maybe it was the back to back client travel leading to pure exhaustion-- but I just didn't have the strength anymore. It turns out, not making decisions is exhausting.

I called the Capital One team. I said I would not be going to the conference. I would instead take Monday and record answers to their questions for the panel. Maybe they could use them, instead. I held my breath while I waited for their response. They were disappointed I wasn't coming but completely understood. The decision had been made. Off I went.

I recorded each answer to the panel questions separately and saved them as separate files and sent them. At , there was no snow outside at all. My flight was supposed to take off in an hour. I wondered, had I made a mistake?

As each half hour passed and I watched my phone ping with delays from the flight, I felt a tremendous sense of relief. At the flight was finally cancelled. It turns out, I had made the right decision even if the videos didn't work. Hooray!

I got a call the next day from the head of sales-- not only did the videos work-- they spoke to the digital nature of my company and Capital One's core values! They were thrilled. Again, right decision.

The snow fell, but not anywhere near to the predicted levels. And yet, all air travel stopped. My flight home was cancelled too, and rerouted in an entirely different direction for the rebooked flights. Again, I felt great.

But what if it hadn't snowed? What if my videos didn't play properly? What if my flights were on time? What if my decision had been wrong?

The answer? So what.

Making decisions saves time and tons of mental energy. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. But the ability to be decisive is what separates good leaders from great ones.

I have spent the last 4 years as a CEO learning to be more decisive. The thing I learned is that right or wrong, it always, always pays off.

Carrie Kerpen is the CEO of Likeable Media, a social media agency. She is passionate about social media, and connecting women in digital via her podcast, All The Social Ladies. Tweet her @carriekerpen</s>We all know that our emotions affect our decisions. In fact, scientists have found that without emotions we become completely ineffective at making decisions.

Emotions also impact teamwork. That’s a big reason why recent research shows emotional intelligence is one of the strongest predictors of success at work. And the biggest problems arise when team decision making and emotions collide.

When it comes decision making, a little emotion is good, even if the emotions seem inherently unpleasant or unproductive. Feeling a little fear, sadness or irritation can help to spark motivation or broaden the search for alternatives.

On the flip side, a little too much emotion is generally bad, even if the emotions seem pleasant and productive. When an entire team of people is feeling curious, excited or confident, they are more likely to spend too much time admiring the view in their matching rose colored glasses, or happily make a decision to drive right off a cliff.

So, when you are working with your team to make a decision, it is critical to be aware of how the emotional state of people around the table affects the team’s approach to the decision. This is especially true when emotions are running high, or when everyone in the group is feeling the same way.

Use this list to keep perspective when emotions arise in team decision-making discussions at your company. It’s based on the most common emotions experienced by business decision-making teams, according to thousands of team decisions recorded in the Cloverpop business decision database.

These emotions feel good. Individually, they keep us going. The problem is not how they feel, but how they can affect decision-making behavior in groups. On the one hand, these emotions can create a sort of “fabulousness paralysis” where everyone is happily exploring different directions without moving the decision forward. On the other hand, if the right catalyzing person or event strikes a spark the group may rush forward, brushing off real risks, failing to consider other options and ultimately making decisions that fall short of expectations.

These emotions feel bad. But that is the source of their power when it comes to business decision making. Except in extreme circumstances, these emotions motivate us to make a change, and they do a great job helping us come up with more alternatives. They are the source of proverbial wisdom, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” If your team isn’t feeling at least a bit stressed or unsure about a decision, chances are you aren’t trying hard enough to find a better way.

Another set of feel good vibes, and another mixed bag when it comes to decision making. On the plus side, these emotions help build teams that stick together, which is a great asset when things go south. However, these emotions can really put a damper on good decision making. A confident and satisfied team not only considers fewer alternatives, but they also do a worse job analyzing the options in front of them. And the longer a team feels this way, the worse it gets.

Irritated, Angry - The Seeds of Dismissal and Discontent

There’s not much good to say here. These emotions feel bad, and don’t do much good. Anger causes us to dismiss each other’s opinions and narrow our view of the world to match our feelings. This results in discontent even when everyone is angry together, since different people are angered by different things. Angry teams are easily distracted by unimportant information and leap to short-sighted solutions. Angry teams make bad decisions.

What To Do? Involve Other People and Write Things Down

When it comes to decision making, there are two approaches almost always drive better results: ask other people for their perspectives, and write things down. Emotions are no different. Here's what to do.

Our research shows that inviting 5 or so other people to weigh in on decisions helps create a more diverse and balanced emotional climate. The more people are involved, the less likely they’ll all be wearing rose colored glasses. This is one of the many ways diversity drives better decision making.

At the same time, neuroimaging shows that when you write emotions down, you lessen their intensity. This not only mellows your own emotions, but also tempers your reaction to other people’s emotions. That’s perfect for better decision making, since too much emotion is bad, but a little is good. Here’s how to take advantage of this neuroscience insight:

Good: Start small - just write down your own most intense 3 to 5 emotions. You’ll suddenly be a calmer, wiser version of yourself and make a better decision.

Better: Write down your own 3 to 5 emotions to mellow their impact. Then write down your guesses at how the emotions stirred up in other people. If you do this in real time during a meeting, it will tamp down your own reactions to their short-sighted irritation or unfocused curiosity.

Best: Have everyone write down their top 3 to 5 emotions, and share the results anonymously with the group. This is hard to do in a meeting, so try to do it before the meeting. This strategy combines the best of both worlds - it reduces emotional intensity for each person, and gives everyone a shared perspective. For bonus points, keep track over time, and take action if the team’s emotional climate takes a bad turn.

Erik Larson is the CEO and founder of Cloverpop, an online platform for managing and measuring team decision making. He explores how the decision revolution is changing business leadership.</s>The deferral of a decision on an incinerator in Cork Harbour was to allow waste management company Indaver to address concerns over helicopter flights nearby, The Irish Times has learned.

An Bord Pleanála’s deferral of the decision on the €160 million facility was to allow Indaver to provide more information on the impact it would have on helicopters entering and leaving Haulbowline Naval Base.

An Bord Pleanála was due to give a decision on the 240,000-tonne capacity municipal and hazardous waste incinerator at Ringaskiddy on Wednesday, but a decision was taken earlier this month to defer a decision for the fourth time and seek more information from Indaver.

The planning authority wrote to Indaver on Monday, pointing out “the issue of helicopter navigation safety at Haulbowline Naval Base has been brought to the attention of An Bord Pleanála in submissions by the Dept of Defence to the oral hearing” on the project held last April and May.

It has invited Indaver to respond to concerns on how emissions from the incinerator chimney stack might impact on local climatic conditions and helicopters landing and taking off from Haulbowline, and whether there might be a need for an exclusion zone around the naval base.

During the oral hearing, Cmdt David Browne of the Irish Air Corps said construction of the incinerator so close to Haulbowline would “create a flight safety hazard to Air Corps helicopter operations” and impact on its ability to operate helicopters into Haulbowline.

Cmdt Browne also criticised the use of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) standards by British-based consultants hired by Indaver when assessing the impact of the development, pointing out that the Irish Air Corps, like the RAF in the UK, operate to military aviation standards and not CAA ones.

Counsel for Indaver, Rory Mulcahy SC, said in his closing statement at the hearing that Indaver had sought to address Air Corps concerns and environmental consultant Dr Edward Porter had testified the plume from the stack does not pose a risk to any helicopter more than 50 metres from it.

He pointed out that an aviation consultant, retired Cmdr Shane Savage (Royal Navy), had testified he could see no difficulty for the Air Corps in avoiding the small zone of influence of the exhaust plume, irrespective of the weather conditions in the area.

The Irish Times understands An Bord Pleanála’s decision to seek more information from Indaver on the impact of the incinerator on helicopter traffic was taken earlier this month, several days prior to the Rescue 116 tragedy off the Co Mayo coast on March 14th.

Meanwhile, Indaver said it would respond to the An Bord Pleanála request for additional information on the impact on helicopter operations by the May 15th deadline set by the board and it looked forward to the board’s decision in due course after that date.

Linda Fitzpatrick of Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment (CHASE), said if An Bord Pleanála needs additional information on the impact on helicopter movements, it should ask the Department of Defence, as Indaver had “neither the authority nor the expertise to answer its queries”.</s>Urgent Matters Judge of Beirut Jad Maalouf issued on March 18, 2017, a new decision ordering the construction works of Eden Rock project to be halted under penalty of paying a fine of LBP 150 million for each day of violation.

The decision was delivered on Monday to the company’s attorney Bahij Abou Moujahed, while a copy of the decision was attached in a visible place on the worksite.

The decision was issued upon the request of Green Line Association in an attempt to impose the implementation of the two previous decision issued by the state’s Shura Council to stop the construction works.</s>Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch was thrust on the defensive on Tuesday over a case that Democrats said showed him to be insufficiently sensitive when a man faced a life-or-death decision.

Al Franken of Minnesota asked Gorsuch during his hearing before the Judiciary Committee to defend his decision in a case in which a trucker was fired for abandoning his broken-down trailer in freezing temperatures to seek safety.

The trucker, Alphonse Maddin, filed a complaint asserting that his firing violated a federal safety law. In a 2-1 decision, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Maddin’s favor.

“I don’t think you’d want to be on the road with him, would you judge?” Franken asked.

“You would or not? It’s a really easy: ‘Yes’ or ‘no?'” he pressed.

Gorsuch dissented in the decision: “It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one,” he wrote. “But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.”

“It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle,” said the former “Saturday Night Live” star. “Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity, and I know it when I see it and it makes me question your judgment.”

“I would’ve done exactly what he did, and I think everybody here would’ve done exactly what he did,” Franken said.</s>MDKA President Michael Kleinberg discusses the decision to move offices from Southfield Ave. to Shippan Landing in Stamford, Conn. on MDKA President Michael Kleinberg discusses the decision to move offices from Southfield Ave. to Shippan Landing in Stamford, Conn.

Start the conversation, or Read more at Fairfield Citizen-News.
In a 6–2 decision (NLRB v. SW General, Inc), the U.S. Supreme Court puts new restrictions on presidential powers, limiting a president's authority to staff certain top government posts in a case involving an appointment to the National Labor Relations Board saying that under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a person cannot serve as the acting head of a federal agency once the president nominates him or her to permanently serve in the role if it is a position that requires U.S. Senate confirmation. The court upholds a lower court's ruling that then-President Barack Obama exceeded his legal authority with his temporary appointment of an NLRB general counsel in 2011. The ruling will give President Donald Trump and future presidents less flexibility in filling jobs that require Senate confirmation.