Obama recess appointing Cordray

[Jhhnn]

I'm not talking about Cordray but the 3 people appointed to the NSLB.

So will you answer the question or just spout out more ignorant republican hate?

So you're attempting to duh-vert the discussion off topic?

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, you're the hypocrite. Where is your criticism of the Bush recess appointments?

Silence. You did not, right? But now you will, for no reason other than it's Obaba?

And you have gall, you hypocrite, to say others are being hypocritical?

Now, two wrongs don't make a right - are both hypocrites? No.

You're ignorant. You don't understand the issue, the difference between the issues in the appointments between Bush and Obama that make Obama's better than Bush's.

Here's a little taste of the history.

Under Clinton, the Republicans abused the power of approval. They did things like leave massive vacancies on courts causing crises simply to try to wait years to get the chance for the next president to make appointments, or other power plays. They'd threaten not to approve any judicial appointments at all as a way of extorting him to meet demands they had they had no basis for making, like giving them advance written notice of any recess appointments.

They even changed the rules for approvals to make it easier for Republicans to block appointments, requiring only one instead of both Senators to object.

Of course, as soon as Bush took office all that changed - no more advance written notice of recess appointments, back to both Senators needed to block an appointment, etc.

And the Republicans shamelessly used the powers they had denied Clinton - recess appointments went way up and were not any controversy. But why did they happen?

Democrats had used recess appointments more for things like getting around bigotry. Truman appointed a black judge blocked by Southern racists. Clinton's nomination for ambssador was not voted on by the Senate - he was gay. Clinton recess appointed him and he became the first openly gay ambassador.

In contrast, while Republicans had blocked many of Clinton's judicial appointments, Bush was much more radical in appointing right-wing nominees, even replacing the evaluator of nomminees since the ABA used by both parties since Eisenhower with the radical right-wing Federalist Society. Democrats gave him a lot of latitude and approved far more of his nominees than they had Clinton's, but blocked a handful of the worst for very good reason. Republicans howled, dishonestly, that the Democrats were highly obstructionist.

This was the case where Bush recess appointed even those handful of judges.

Another case was that Bush wanted to appoint a man many found to be hugely unqualified to be the US ambassador to the UN, a man openly hostile to the agency, John Bolton.

The Senate would not confirm him - so Bush recess appointed him. This is the level of crap nominee Bush nominated with the 'recesss power'.

Bush made 171 recess appointments.

Again in contrast, Republican objections to nominees repeatedly are not based on any legitimate objections, but sometimes even admittedly - as in the case of Cordrey, have nothing to do with the nominee's qulifications, but are political - in the bad sense of the word, as in refusing to give any latitude for the President not sharing their ideology, or in this case abusing the power of approval to try to make an end run around the agency even functioning.

This was the case as well in the example of Clinton appointing a black judge to the US Court of Appeals that had been vacant for *ten years*.

Clinton finally made a recess appointment after trying to get Republicans to vote on him for years, just before he left office.

The objections were not about his qualifications - in fact he was so clearly qualified even Bush chose not to be seen denying the appointment and nominated him himself.

No problem approving him, when BUSH made the nomination instead of Clinton.

The issue isn't as simple as all nominations and blocking being the same between the parties. Republicans have played politics far more and abused the power.

Just as they are here. There are very different reasons between Obama and Bush recess appointments.

In fact, it was bad enough with Bush, that the last two years of his presidency when Democrats took control, they kept the Senate in session to prevent more appointments.

So Bush's 171 were just in the six years before. In contrast, by Wikipedia's count this is Obama's 18th recess appointment and only two failed approval by the Senate.

While I agree with most of what you said, Lothar makes a very good point in the post directly below the one I am responding to.

The ever expanding and mostly unchallenged power of the executive is not a good thing imo, regardless of party.

 

[xBiffx]

And what the Republicans are reaping for sowing their underhanded seed is a recess appointment.

Notice how I had the word legally in my original post? What the Republicans did was legal, even if you don't like it. What the President did is not legal. Nice try.

 

[Darwin333]

Exactly, who has standing to sue? Senate? Is the Senate going to pass a resolution to sue? No.

Anyone or any group that is "harmed" by any official action he takes?

 

[Craig234]

Ya, the Democrats blocked Steve Bradbury - one of those lawyers used by the Bush administration to approve their use of torture.

In September, the White House has declared that its “next priority this fall” is to obtain Senate approval for Steven Bradbury, “the man who is advising President Bush on the extent of his terrorism-fighting powers.” In 2005, Bradbury replaced Jack Goldsmith as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and has since been interim OLC chief.

Today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed reservations about Bradbury. “What we know is troubling. Mr. Bradbury refuses to repudiate un-American and inhumane tactics such as waterboarding and mock executions. … There are also serious and unanswered questions about Mr. Bradbury’s role in NSA warrantless surveillance programs.”

Durbin announced that he, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), have written a letter to President Bush calling on him to find a more independent nominee:


I think we need new leadership at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, joined by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, I’m sending a letter to President Bush calling on him to withdraw the nomination of Steven Bradbury … and to submit another nomination. … OLC is a small office, but it really has a lot of power, especially in this administration.

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/10/durbinbradbury1.320.240.flv]

A lengthy New York Times expose this month revealed that in 2005, Bradbury signed off on a secret DoJ torture memo that endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA.” Bradbury also approved an executive order approving “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

The White House “relies on OLC for legal approval of surveillance programs, detainee treatment” and a host of classified issues; subsequently, Bradbury has been on the forefront of these efforts, allowing himself to become a politicized tool of Dick Cheney’s office. Such politicization appears to have occurred, “with Cheney’s blessing, to ensure that the department didn’t balk, as Goldsmith and his allies did, over torture or surveillance or indefinite detentions.”

In July 2006, Bradbury testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and proclaimed that “the president is always right.”

Funny enough, just before Bush left office, Bradbury issued new memos repudiating the previous ones, saying they 'no longer reflected the views' of the office.

 

[theeedude]

Also, if the claim is that Senate didn't have enough time to debate the nominees, why aren't they debating them right now? They are claiming to be in session, but have nothing on their agenda. Seems like a perfect time to debate nominees they didn't have time to debate before.

 

[xBiffx]

Anyone or any group that is "harmed" by any official action he takes?

The Chamber of Commerce is considering a lawsuit. Pretty easy to make this case of harm too.

 

[theeedude]

Notice how I had the word legally in my original post? What the Republicans did was legal, even if you don't like it. What the President did is not legal. Nice try.

No court has ruled on the legality of either. So your claim is nothing more than your opinion.

 

[xBiffx]

No court has ruled on the legality of either. So your claim is nothing more than your opinion.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[theeedude]

The Chamber of Commerce is considering a lawsuit. Pretty easy to make this case of harm too.

Then let them sue. First this nominee would have to issue some rules that do the harm. If he issues some popular rules that protect consumers, and they sue to stop those, it sets up the whole Obama vs Banksters and their Republican puppets narrative nicely going into the election.

 

[Craig234]

While I agree with most of what you said, Lothar makes a very good point in the post directly below the one I am responding to.

The ever expanding and mostly unchallenged power of the executive is not a good thing imo, regardless of party.

I agree with your general point - for example I've criticized Obama on Libya - but I don't see it in this case at this point. Maybe if something convinces me that the minority party has the right to keep the Senate in permanent session preventing any recess appointment ever is a constitutional power, we can revisit that.

 

[nageov3t]

be careful what you wish for; it's only a matter of time before a Republican president will use this against a Democratic congress to appoint god knows who.

granting the executive branch more and more power isn't good just because you happen to agree with what they're using it for in this specific instance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) began holding pro forma session periodically in President George W. Bush’s second term in order to prevent controversial recess appointments like Steven Bradbury being named to the top ranks of the Justice Department. The Bush administration protested the move, but the president didn’t make recess appointments during the pro forma sessions.

​

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71089.html#ixzz1iX9xtBaU
​

 

[Jhhnn]

The Chamber of Commerce is considering a lawsuit. Pretty easy to make this case of harm too.

How can they claim standing? That their toadies in Congress were outmaneuvered in the implementation of existing law, or what?

The whole point of Repub obstructionism has been to stop implementation of what is an overwhelmingly popular and rightfully beneficial measure created by congress & authorized by the executive. By the time any potential legal challenge arises, the agency will be functioning as intended, whether they win or lose in court. It seems entirely unlikely that the courts will rule against that. Cordray might be forced to step down, but that's as far as it'll go. The agency doesn't need a head to function, but rather to start.

The only party that can legitimately claim standing is the US Senate, and it'll never come to that, anyway.

It's not the Senate being held in faux session, but rather the HOR, who have no say in the matter, anyway.

 

[Ausm]

Can any Rabid Right Winger on here layout why the GOP was obstructing Corday's nomination for all this time?

 

[Craig234]

be careful what you wish for; it's only a matter of time before a Republican president will use this against a Democratic congress to appoint god knows who.

granting the executive branch more and more power isn't good just because you happen to agree with what they're using it for in this specific instance.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71089.html#ixzz1iX9xtBaU
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

So, you didn't read the thread. Oh noes, maybe they'd appoint John Bolton. Oh, wait.

 

[Ausm]

While I agree with most of what you said, Lothar makes a very good point in the post directly below the one I am responding to.

The ever expanding and mostly unchallenged power of the executive is not a good thing imo, regardless of party.

The only "Wins" President Obama has had is when he can bypass the Republicans in Congress. We elected him and we expected him to go through with his Agenda but this has been impossible since the implementation of the 112th Congress.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can any Rabid Right Winger on here layout why the GOP was obstructing Corday's nomination for all this time?

Because they had achieved their dream of truly superficial financial regulation during the Bush years, leading to the looting & crash of the overheated economy, and they want to maintain that structure to the exclusive benefit of the true Bush constituency?

Oh, wait, I'm not a Rightie...

Rank & file Righties don't need to have a reason- They're True Believers, after all.

 

[nageov3t]

So, you didn't read the thread.

142 posts? you're lucky I read this post before replying to it

 

[Darwin333]

Now here is a bit of irony. If Cordray performs any of the duties of the bureau he would be in violation of Dodd-Frank.

How?

Apparently the specific language in Dodd-Frank says that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director (Cordray) is "confirmed by the Senate". A recess appointment is NOT a Senate confirmation.

Can anyone confirm the legal validity of this claim?

 

[theeedude]

Can anyone confirm the legal validity of this claim?

Only a court can.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Have you ever purchased a home?

I was an estimator/Project Manager for a commercial construction company when I bought my first home. Part of my job was to read, understand, and execute multi-million dollar contracts so I have a much better than average understanding of how contracts work. With that said, I still hired an attorney to go over the litteral reams of paper I had to sign for my house.

I have personally executed a $15,000,000 contract involving numerous trades working on 3 different sites and if I had to guess it was 1/4 the size of the crap I had to sign for my first house loan of $160,000.

"caveat emptor" doesn't really apply when the other side of the table has a team of the best lawyers in town versus whatever the average person can manage, at least not in todays world.

 

[werepossum]

The only "Wins" President Obama has had is when he can bypass the Republicans in Congress. We elected him and we expected him to go through with his Agenda but this has been impossible since the implementation of the 112th Congress.

Actually we elected him AND a Democrat Congress to enact his agenda. Then we actually saw his agenda and collectively said "Oh fuck!" Then we elected a Republican House to stop his agenda. We couldn't quite manage a Republican Senate, but we certainly ended his filibuster-proof majority - something by the way that the Republicans never had.

The 112th Congress wasn't "implemented", it was elected.

 

[theeedude]

Actually we elected him AND a Democrat Congress to enact his agenda. Then we actually saw his agenda and collectively said "Oh fuck!" Then we elected a Republican House to stop his agenda. We couldn't quite manage a Republican Senate, but we certainly ended his filibuster-proof majority - something by the way that the Republicans never had.

The 112th Congress wasn't "implemented", it was elected.

If the Senate has a problem with this, they will pass a resolution to challenge Obama on this. Otherwise, it's just a minority throwing a tantrum.

 

[Darwin333]

If the Senate has a problem with this, they will pass a resolution to challenge Obama on this. Otherwise, it's just a minority throwing a tantrum.

Or a private party that is "harmed" by any action of the office can bring suit, right? That would basically leave the Repubs out of the hunt and put all potential damage/fallout on Obama, right?

 

[theeedude]

Or a private party that is "harmed" by any action of the office can bring suit, right? That would basically leave the Repubs out of the hunt and put all potential damage/fallout on Obama, right?

If they kept their mouth shut, maybe, but they didn't, and won't. So now if some banksters sue Obama over this, they'll be linked to the Republicans bashing him for with the same arguments. It's going to be banks and GOP vs Obama. So let them sue.