Of course the Constitution holds supreme.

Congress entrusted the enforcement of this act to an administrative agency rather than to the courts solely so that it could be free of precedent.

You do not ultimately have the power to decide a recess.

I think, in the broadest sense, what is worse is that this country going to be hurt, the economy is going to be hurt, and workers are going to be hurt.

Ultimately, and happily, the courts are going to decide.

What is going to happen to workers in this country who are fired, who are threatened, who are surveilled.

There is no place judicially for them to seek remedy.

If the labor board is not able to function it will affect all of us, but most of all it affect workers in this country who have the least.

That is absolutely correct. And with respect to your question, just to clarify, while certain things can be investigated at the region, ultimately, if you have an employer who does not want to bargain with the union, who does not want to…

I understand your frustration with the system. But I have to tell you, those of who don't live in this town are even more frustrated to see that the kind of games that are going on is able to essentially paralyze an agency.

I think it is wrong for three reasons. Substantively it is wrong, process-wise it is wrong. And it misses the point.

Ultimately, we reached a contract that protected the nurses. It protected the patients. It protected the hospitals.

What will happen to workers, what will happen to our system of collective bargaining if the labor board is shut down.

I would actually also have advised the president to remain strictly within the constitutional authority.

Under our system of labor relations, like it or not neither the federal courts nor the states have any jurisdiction whatsoever to administer our national laws.

As long as the NLRA and the NLRB stand, they must be permitted to function.

I think my conclusion would be, at the end of this hearing, is that this should be in the Supreme Court.

I think I know the answer I like. I am stunned that George Bush didn't--when you see a construct that is admitted to, designed to prevent you from exercising your constitutional authority, I think you may have an obligation to challenge…