Obama recess appointing Cordray

[fskimospy]

Generally I would be opposed to something like this, but what the Republicans have been doing in terms of appointments is without precedent in all of US history and it is seriously impeding the ability of the government to function. Something has to give, as this can't be allowed to continue.

 

[Ausm]

Awesome way to circumvent the Republican obstructionism.

 

[theeedude]

Again with the hypocrisy. Reid did this exact same action during the last two years of the Bush presidency and liberals like you were all for it.

Obama shows he is a authoritarian thug. Even when rules and precedent keep him from doing what he wants, he just does it anyways.

What recess appointment did Reid block?

 

[woolfe9999]

Why would it require the entire congress through a vote and not just one person in congress through a lawsuit?
See McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which led to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

Standing is a complicated legal issue, but the general rule IIRC is that individuals in Congress can't sue a branch of government over a policy issue because they themselves haven't sustained a direct injury. The most recent case was Kucinich trying to sue the Obama administration over Libya and the War Powers Act, with the courts saying that he had no standing without consent of Congress as a body. In the McConnell v. FEC case, they actually ruled that McConnell had no standing. But there were other, private party plaintiffs in that case.

- wolf

 

[lothar]

There is a long precedent for recess appointments. Obama didn't set it. The precedent that Obama blocked Senate GOP from setting is pretending to be in session while they are on recess by sending a guy to gavel in and gavel out once in a while. If they are in session, they should get their butts back in town and start doing the advise and consent work they are tasked by the Constitution to do.

Harry Reid was doing this same exact thing during Bush's term well before Obama came into office.

Not sure if these "pro-forma" sessions were done during the Clinton years and earlier since I only started voting and following politics in 2002.

 

[theeedude]

Harry Reid was doing this same exact thing during Bush's term well before Obama came into office.

Not sure if these "pro-forma" sessions were done during the Clinton years and earlier since I only started voting and following politics in 2002.

And Teddy Roosevelt did what Obama did in 1903. Do Republicans want to bash Obama for being too much like Teddy Roosevelt in an election year? They should go ahead with that

 

[Nintendesert]

I can already see the cheers when Obama finally sends those damn GOP obstructionists to Gitmo.

 

[lothar]

Generally I would be opposed to something like this, but what the Republicans have been doing in terms of appointments is without precedent in all of US history and it is seriously impeding the ability of the government to function. Something has to give, as this can't be allowed to continue.

Just remember...
Once you open the tap, you can't close it back.
1st Libya, and now this? (I probably skipped many things that happened prior and in between like the issue Rachael Maddow criticized Obama's admin on)

I can see a Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry starting a war with Iran under the same pretenses as Obama did with Libya.

 

[monovillage]

The Democrats/progressives/liberals always like to pretend they're on some kind of moral high road when in fact they're even more corrupt then the Republicans, this is just more proof.
Guess what, if you want to claim the moral high road you actually have to travel on it.

 

[dank69]

Psst... your Dems get plenty of contributions from Wall St too genius.

And Barney's Frank was dead against any reform of Fannie/Freddie as the bubble was getting bigger and bigger in 2003-2004, because Fan & Fred were significant contributors to Democrats.

Yes, I am against this agency for the record. Because I believe it will hamper lending and do exactly the OPPOSITE of what you retards think it will do. You want oversight but still expect lenders to make unprofitable loans to unqualified buyers without adequate risk compensation. You want massive new regulations yet stand in denial of its dampening effect on liquidity in the marketplace.

Here's an idea... how about expecting people to stop going through life clueless and maybe expect them to be more street smart, more rational, and less knee-jerk emotional? There have been and always will be spivvy scumbags in life and we shouldn't try to protect against everything bad that can happen to someone. Yes, during the housing boom some unfortunates got ripped off with accreting mortgages they didn't understand. But they wanted that house so badly... they were buying em, flipping em like pancakes. Until one day the music stopped and suddenly the piper had to be paid.

I'm sorry, I'm just very libertarian about many things. I have seen the incompetence of government over and over and frankly I'm not convinced we aren't all better off on our own for most things. This new bureacracy is not going to do one damn thing except grow government and the NEXT disaster is going to happen in spite of its creation.

Nobody here wants what you claim liberals want in bold above. Those are just the voices in your head.

 

[Craig234]

Exactly. The Dems started this nonsense when 'W' was in office and now that they are having it done to them, they don't like it very much. So Obama goes ahead and makes the recess appointment in direct violation of Congressional rules/precedent that would block such appointments. He wants to see what happens now. I guess the difference is that Dems don't like playing by the rules unless it suits their agenda right?

Anyway, this is unnecessarily provocative and will only hurt his standing with Americans further. This is a net-negative for the President in my view.

You're full of crap. It's a waste of time having any discussion with you on this - your position is nothing more than 'support Republicans right or wrong for the sake of it.'

The fact there is some legitimate question inside your post is wiped out by the sheer misrepresentation of the larger issues - such as ignoring the differences.

It's ironic for Republicans to cry 'violation of precedent' when thye have been the bulls in a china shop on violating precedent - the precedent of abusing the filibuster to gian veto power over nearly all legislation as a minority rather than the limited power it's traditionally had, the precedent changing the number of Senators in a state needed to block a judicial appointment from two to one under Clinton, then back to two under Bush, the use of the American Bar Association to tate judicial nominees, and many, many more violations.

But you don't care about that - you're just a parrot here ignoring many cases of 'violating precedent' by your side to spout the 'violating precedent' claim over this one.

And you are ignoring the larger issue that Republicans are abusing the approval process to try to get an end run around an agency they disagree with - becuase it's for the benefit of the American people at the expense of their masters, the big banks - which is another case of Republicans 'violating precedent', while whining it's being done to them.

 

[fskimospy]

Just remember...
Once you open the tap, you can't close it back.
1st Libya, and now this? (I probably skipped many things that happened prior and in between like the issue Rachael Maddow criticized Obama's admin on)

I can see a Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry starting a war with Iran under the same pretenses as Obama did with Libya.

I'm quite aware that you can't take it back. I'm not sure if you realize how dire the situation is with Senate confirmed appointees however. If I'm not mistaken it is worse than at any other point in US history, almost entirely due to the intransigence of the minority party.

As for Libya, Perry or Bachmann couldn't really start too much of a war with the rationale that Obama used. (his point was that no US troops were in combat) Still, I strongly agree that Obama and the presidents before him have basically usurped Congress's warmaking powers and I think that's a bad thing.

In this case however it isn't so much the President usurping Congress's powers as it is a competition between two powers. Obama has the express power under the Constitution to conduct recess appointments. Congress, through a parlimentary procedure is in effect be eliminating this explicitly granted power, something they aren't allowed to do. I'm not a fan of how this is all going from a good governance standpoint, but at some point something has to be done.

 

[theeedude]

Just remember...
Once you open the tap, you can't close it back.
1st Libya, and now this? (I probably skipped many things that happened prior and in between like the issue Rachael Maddow criticized Obama's admin on)

I can see a Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry starting a war with Iran under the same pretenses as Obama did with Libya.

Republicans opened the tap when they started abusing the filibuster.
People comparing Reid to this are forgetting that Reid was Senate MAJORITY leader in the last 2 years of Bush. Republicans are an obstructionist MINORITY in the Senate that is blocking the Senate from voting on nominees to accomplish deregulation that they couldn't accomplish legislatively. As a minority, they have no standing to sue, the majority of the Senate does not feel it has been wronged by this.

 

[Craig234]

Nobody here wants what you claim liberals want in bold above. Those are just the voices in your head.

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Your comment to him is right on that his views are a straw man.

 

[Craig234]

I have a question, which is why the MINORITY in Congress is able to prevent longer recesses to try to block recess appointments.

Democrats as the Minority in the Senate didn't do so the first six years of Bush, only the last two years as majority. So how are Republicans doiing it with 'pro forma sessions'?

I called Sen. Reid's office to ask, and they do not have the people working who have the answer.

 

[Craig234]

What recess appointment did Reid block?

Reid blocked all recess appointments the last two yeats of the Bush presidency.

 

[werepossum]

Well I mean if you want to change the agency, that's fine. The idea that you could nullify a statute after its been passed by refusing to staff it seems like a bad precedent to set for everyone. (don't like the defense budget? no secretary of defense!) I think we can and should argue all day long on the structure and purpose of government but we should not attempt to prevent agencies from undertaking their lawfully enacted duties.

Agreed. I absolutely hated it when the Democrats starting blocking votes on Bush nominees, and I still hate it when it's Republicans blocking votes on Obama nominees, no matter what the reason. There should be no filibusters and no pro forma sessions to block nominees. And while we're at it, there should be no secret holds, and for that matter no holds at all except to ask for specific information. If a Senator has an objection to a nominee, he or she should have the stones/ovaries to explain them in debate and lay out why the nominee should not be confirmed.

 

[theeedude]

Reid blocked all recess appointments the last two yeats of the Bush presidency.

What about the first 6 years, when he was in the minority like Republicans are now?

 

[theeedude]

Republicans want the Senate in session to do nothing. I hope they try to sue to drive that point home. Good luck explaining that to the American people.

 

[Craig234]

Harry Reid was doing this same exact thing during Bush's term well before Obama came into office.

Not sure if these "pro-forma" sessions were done during the Clinton years and earlier since I only started voting and following politics in 2002.

You're largely right, the difference beint majority versus minority.

Look, this is not a simple issue when it comes to the moral high ground.

Receess appointments exist at all not for getting around the approval process but as a practical matter when an appointment is urgently needed and Congress is out.

But then Congress sometimes blocked appointments for bad reasons - and Presidents used the power they clearly had but for other reasons, to 'do the right thing'.

As in the examples of appointing a black or gay person who was a great appointment, but blocked by bigots.

And once that was done, a worse president used the power get around Congressional opposition for GOOD reasons, for bad judicial nominees, John Bolton, etc.

And then as a result you had Congress blocking the President from recess appointments to 'do the right thing' to block the abuse of the recess appointment.

And now you have the Republican Congress trying to use the same thing for bad reasons, to block any functioning of an agency on behalf of the people.

And you have the President getting around them on that, to do the right thing.

So when you want to disicuss the right and wrong, there's a long way to go in that discussion - and the bottom line is Republicans abusing process and doing the wrong thing.

But as a process issue, the process doesn't decide right and wrong. What one party does with power for a 'good cause', the other can do for a 'bad cause'.

I don't see anything illegal here - the precedent of using recess appointments to get around Congressional opposition the president disagrees with was begun by Washington.

If you want to say things were wrong since Washington and the recess appointment should be removed altogether (directly or indirectl by allowing for 'permanent session' without any recess), fine, but then you are left with the things like Congress blocking nominees for 'bad reasons' from bigotry to political end runs as with Cordrey.

How then do you force the Congress to do its constitutional obligation of actually voting on nominees?

 

[brencat]

You're full of crap. It's a waste of time having any discussion with you on this - your position is nothing more than 'support Republicans right or wrong for the sake of it.'

Wow do you really want to go there, Craig?

95% of your posts defend or suggest a view of "support Democrats right or wrong for the sake of it."

I can't remember the other 5% (but I'm certain they don't support Repubs () )

 

[lothar]

I'm quite aware that you can't take it back. I'm not sure if you realize how dire the situation is with Senate confirmed appointees however. If I'm not mistaken it is worse than at any other point in US history, almost entirely due to the intransigence of the minority party.

As for Libya, Perry or Bachmann couldn't really start too much of a war with the rationale that Obama used. (his point was that no US troops were in combat) Still, I strongly agree that Obama and the presidents before him have basically usurped Congress's warmaking powers and I think that's a bad thing.

In this case however it isn't so much the President usurping Congress's powers as it is a competition between two powers. Obama has the express power under the Constitution to conduct recess appointments. Congress, through a parlimentary procedure is in effect be eliminating this explicitly granted power, something they aren't allowed to do. I'm not a fan of how this is all going from a good governance standpoint, but at some point something has to be done.

The situation is always dire with appointees regardless of who's in office.
Clinton set a big record at the end of his term and had lots of holes to fill. Bush had lots of holes to fill as well, and so do Obama.
I remember Bush campaigning on "Democratic" obstructionism in his 2004 re-election bid. If I recall, that's how Tom Daschle lost his seat in South Dakota.
http://www.google.com/search?q=obst....,cf.osb&fp=d6b7c50fe1987ca1&biw=1680&bih=926

You don't see Perry or Bachmann lobbing thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iran from hundreds of miles away and claim that no US troops were in combat? You give them too much credit.

 

[Craig234]

What about the first 6 years, when he was in the minority like Republicans are now?

During the first six years with Democrats usually in the minority (and not abusing their power when in the majority like Republicans had), Bush made 171 recess appointments.

 

[Craig234]

The situation is always dire with appointees regardless of who's in office.
Clinton set a big record at the end of his term and had lots of holes to fill. Bush had lots of holes to fill as well, and so do Obama.
I remember Bush campaigning on "Democratic" obstructionism in his 2004 re-election bid. If I recall, that's how Tom Daschle lost his seat in South Dakota.
http://www.google.com/search?q=obst....,cf.osb&fp=d6b7c50fe1987ca1&biw=1680&bih=926

You don't see Perry or Bachmann lobbing thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iran from hundreds of miles away and claim that no US troops were in combat? You give them too much credit.

Bush campaigned on Democratic 'obstructionism' - by which he meant the Democrats 'only' approving nearly all his radical right-wing jusicial nominees and blocking a handful.

This after Republicans had blocked FAR more of Clinton's nominees - and dishonestly complained that it was DEMOCRATS who were the ones doing this too much.

In fact, Republicans had threatened to block ALL of Clinton's judicial nominations to extort him.

And in fact, Bush DID use recess appointments to get around Democrats blocking the handful of his very worst nominees.

 

[fskimospy]

The situation is always dire with appointees regardless of who's in office.
Clinton set a big record at the end of his term and had lots of holes to fill. Bush had lots of holes to fill as well, and so do Obama.
I remember Bush campaigning on "Democratic" obstructionism in his 2004 re-election bid. If I recall, that's how Tom Daschle lost his seat in South Dakota.
http://www.google.com/search?q=obst....,cf.osb&fp=d6b7c50fe1987ca1&biw=1680&bih=926

You don't see Perry or Bachmann lobbing thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iran from hundreds of miles away and claim that no US troops were in combat? You give them too much credit.

And if you look at the numbers, the 'crisis' was nowhere close to where it is now and there weren't large numbers of nominees that could not be filled by any method. Seriously, go check it out. It's insane.

As for them lobbing cruise missiles I think you misunderstand me. Obama, Perry, and Bachmann already have the ability to lob cruise missiles at wherever they want without notifying Congress. If they were to elect to continue to fight after 60 days, then they are supposed to need Congress' a-OK.

I'm not saying I approve of Obama's handling of Libya, (I don't!) I'm just saying his argument wasn't what you're saying it was.