Obama recess appointing Cordray

[fskimospy]

Do you think this move by President Obama is going to improve his relationship with the House and the Senate? Do you think this was a shrewd political move by President Obama or a mistake ?

This was a good political move by him, no doubt. The Republicans have 3 options that I can see. They can complain a bit and let them stand, they can take Obama to court, or they can try to make political hay out of it.

If they let the picks stand without doing much, Obama wins because he gets the guys he wanted.

If they take Obama to court and make a big stink out of it, they face an uphill, drawn out legal battle that will probably take almost as long as the appointments last to get resolved. Obama effectively wins there too unless the Republicans get an injunction, which seems unlikely.

If they try to make political hay out of the issue they have to explain parliamentary procedure to America and how they were claiming to keep the Senate working even though everyone knows they weren't doing any work. Then they have to explain how they were fighting against a guy who everyone, even Republicans, admits is super qualified for the post because they are mad about legislation that was passed last year. They will appear petulant and obstructionist. (I seriously doubt they want to draw attention to their obstruction efforts over the past few years)

I don't see a good ending for Republicans in any way out of this, so it seems Obama made a smart call.

 

[monovillage]

Thanks for the reply. In this particular case I think the Republicans will take it to court and win, but you could be right.

 

[xBiffx]

Thanks for the reply. In this particular case I think the Republicans will take it to court and win, but you could be right.

I have to agree since they have legal standing in their actions. Again, people may not like the way they did it and can easily call them obstructionists. That's not illegal and no one can say they did anything illegal. The President's actions, on the other hand, can easily be questioned. The legality of these actions can also easily be called into question.

Like it or not, the Republican's here did nothing illegal.

 

[Jhhnn]

And what about the Bush federal judges nominees that got blocked? Oh, that's right. That was OK.

Utter lameness. At the time, Dems had allowed the confirmation of nearly 200 of Bush's court nominees, blocking only 8, the worst political toadies of the bunch, slated for the appeals courts, positions of extreme power.

It's not like Dems did so to prevent implementation of existing law, but rather as an exercise in the very restrained use of minority prerogatives within the rules of the Senate. They'd even made a deal with Bush the previous year, where he withdrew those names to smooth confirmation of other nominees, which he promptly reneged after the election, re-nominated the same people.

Too bad that current Repubs haven't shown the same restraint, haven't acknowledged that the President needs to be able to make appointments to make the govt actually work. Their efforts are strictly in pursuit of hobbling the duly elected govt of the people, rendering it incapable of doing the job that the people elected it to do.

Their current efforts are pure selfishness- if they can't run it, then they won't let anybody else run it.

 

[FerrelGeek]

SMH ^^^

 

[fskimospy]

lol.

"Republicans Outraged that Obama is Obstructing their Obstruction."

http://wonkette.com/459524/republic...-is-obstructing-their-obstruction#more-459524

 

[Jhhnn]

I have to agree since they have legal standing in their actions. Again, people may not like the way they did it and can easily call them obstructionists. That's not illegal and no one can say they did anything illegal. The President's actions, on the other hand, can easily be questioned. The legality of these actions can also easily be called into question.

Like it or not, the Republican's here did nothing illegal.

The best part of all this is the utter blindness of partisans like yourself.

I linked Repubs' justifications, and the Constitutional provisions they erroneously cite. It's right there in black & white, yet you still Believe, still follow, still keep the Faith as if it were worthy of your consideration. It's not. Repubs don't have any constitutional justification whatsoever, and it's high time their followers acknowledge that.

 

[werepossum]

How is it technically illegal? There's nothing for how long a recess has to be for appointment. Only unwritten precedent. It would actually be technically legal as there has been no legal test of the unwritten precedent of three days.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the Democrats discovered something long agreed to be illegal was actually legal when they wanted to do it, but it's always been accepted that the Senate is in session until it is recessed for the session. In fact, Harry Reid did the same thing to prevent Bush from making recess appointments.

Nice spin...oh it's called Democratic not Democrat unless you are a disciple of Fox News.

"Democratic" has a specific meaning. The Democrats are very much dedicated to removing that meaning from you. Ergo a Congress of Democrats is a Democrat Congress, but certainly not a Democratic Congress.

 

[FerrelGeek]

It's interesting to see the Republican position on this. Quite a number of the Republicans blocking these nominations have stated in the past that they believed filibustering nominees (judicial in particular) was not only wrong, but unconstitutional. They appear to have changed their minds on this. Additionally, even Republican members of the 'gang of 14' that resolved the previous judicial filibuster fracas by pledging only to filibuster nominees in 'extraordinary circumstances' has been merrily filibustering away in complete violation of their pledge.

My comment was mainly to point out that dems were outraged when Bush did this, but now, it's ok cuz it's their guy that's doing it. And Obama actually said that he wouldn't do this. I don't have the time to look up exactly when he said that, but he did make that claim.

I'm very uncomfortable with where Obama is heading in doing what he wants in spite of the rules / precedents. The chacks and balances were put into the Constitution for a reason.

 

[Jhhnn]

My comment was mainly to point out that dems were outraged when Bush did this, but now, it's ok cuz it's their guy that's doing it. And Obama actually said that he wouldn't do this. I don't have the time to look up exactly when he said that, but he did make that claim.

I'm very uncomfortable with where Obama is heading in doing what he wants in spite of the rules / precedents. The chacks and balances were put into the Constitution for a reason.

Yep, and he's following them. See post #160.

 

[xBiffx]

The best part of all this is the utter blindness of partisans like yourself.

I linked Repubs' justifications, and the Constitutional provisions they erroneously cite. It's right there in black & white, yet you still Believe, still follow, still keep the Faith as if it were worthy of your consideration. It's not. Repubs don't have any constitutional justification whatsoever, and it's high time their followers acknowledge that.

And again you continue to fail to see how Senate rules were being followed this whole time. Reid did this exact same thing before, which set precedent and somehow was OK back then. Nowhere have the Republicans broken anything stated in the constitution. The Senate was not in recess according to its own rules, rules that were followed back when Reid used them. Now you want to throw that all away because things don't go your way?

 

[Ausm]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the Democrats discovered something long agreed to be illegal was actually legal when they wanted to do it, but it's always been accepted that the Senate is in session until it is recessed for the session. In fact, Harry Reid did the same thing to prevent Bush from making recess appointments.


"Democratic" has a specific meaning. The Democrats are very much dedicated to removing that meaning from you. Ergo a Congress of Democrats is a Democrat Congress, but certainly not a Democratic Congress.

LMAO...whatever bro

 

[fskimospy]

My comment was mainly to point out that dems were outraged when Bush did this, but now, it's ok cuz it's their guy that's doing it. And Obama actually said that he wouldn't do this. I don't have the time to look up exactly when he said that, but he did make that claim.

I'm very uncomfortable with where Obama is heading in doing what he wants in spite of the rules / precedents. The chacks and balances were put into the Constitution for a reason.

There is actually no precedent on this, but that's a bit beside the point.

Speaking of checks and balances, the President has the explicitly stated Article II authority to appoint people when Congress is not in session. It's one of the few enumerated powers he has, actually. By any reasonable definition of 'in session', Congress is not currently in session.

Do you believe that despite not conducting any business the Legislative Branch of government should have the ability to unilaterally and permanently eliminate one of the Executive Branch's explicitly granted constitutional powers?

 

[NeoV]

"According to the Congressional Research Service, “President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.” Before Clinton, George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, and Ronald Reagan made 240.

Ronald Reagan averaged more recess appointments in a year (30) than Barack Obama has made during his entire presidency."

/thread - how did this get this many posts - all Presidents have done this - it's nothing new - if anything Obama has shown some restraint in not using this more often.

 

[Jhhnn]

And again you continue to fail to see how Senate rules were being followed this whole time. Reid did this exact same thing before, which set precedent and somehow was OK back then. Nowhere have the Republicans broken anything stated in the constitution. The Senate was not in recess according to its own rules, rules that were followed back when Reid used them. Now you want to throw that all away because things don't go your way?

Like I offered, willful blindness. Constitutionally, the Senate cannot adjourn for more than 3 days if the HOR remains in session. So they adjourn for 3 days, hold a pro forma session, adjourn for another 3 days. Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution, which I quoted & linked. The president, any president, has the right to make recess appointments in those 3 days.

If the Senate remains continuously in pro forma session, then the President is effectively blocked from making recess appointments. That is not the case at hand, however, no matter how badly you want it to be. The HOR remaining in session merely limits the ability of the Senate to adjourn for only 3 days at a time. In each 3 day period, the President can make recess appointments in a perfectly Constitutional fashion, squawking & raving by the opposition merely amounting to dishonest bluster.

I support the right of any President to do the same, not just Obama. It's laid out in the Constitution & the law, plain as day.

 

[Craig234]

My comment was mainly to point out that dems were outraged when Bush did this, but now, it's ok cuz it's their guy that's doing it. And Obama actually said that he wouldn't do this. I don't have the time to look up exactly when he said that, but he did make that claim.

I'm very uncomfortable with where Obama is heading in doing what he wants in spite of the rules / precedents. The chacks and balances were put into the Constitution for a reason.

When Bush did this... when did the Democratic minority in the Senate abuse the filibuster the way Republicans have against Bush? When did they obstruct like Republicans?

They didn't - so Bush didn't 'do it' because he never faced the same obstructionism from Dems. Where's your outrage over Republican obstructionism?

Where in the constitution does it say a minority of Senators should have a veto over almost anything the President wants to do? How is that not abusing the filibuster?

Your 'concern' is very selective, appearing to be based only on who you side with as 'your team'.

Obama has the LEAST recess appointments of the last 5 presidents, ALL Republicans of the last 5 presidents made recess appointments to the labor board, Republicans have unprecedented abuse of power and 'ignoring of precedent' in their obstructionism that harms the American people simply to try to hurt the economy to help them in the next election and to block the measures that help the American people against the most wealthy interests who are the people the Republican party serves. You ignore that.

 

[werepossum]

Like I offered, willful blindness. Constitutionally, the Senate cannot adjourn for more than 3 days if the HOR remains in session. So they adjourn for 3 days, hold a pro forma session, adjourn for another 3 days. Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution, which I quoted & linked. The president, any president, has the right to make recess appointments in those 3 days.

If the Senate remains continuously in pro forma session, then the President is effectively blocked from making recess appointments. That is not the case at hand, however, no matter how badly you want it to be. The HOR remaining in session merely limits the ability of the Senate to adjourn for only 3 days at a time. In each 3 day period, the President can make recess appointments in a perfectly Constitutional fashion, squawking & raving by the opposition merely amounting to dishonest bluster.

I support the right of any President to do the same, not just Obama. It's laid out in the Constitution & the law, plain as day.

Surprisingly it took a progressive Democrat to discover that this was actually legal, much like it took progressive Democrats to discover that freedom of religion actually means freedom from religion.

"According to the Congressional Research Service, “President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.” Before Clinton, George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, and Ronald Reagan made 240.

Ronald Reagan averaged more recess appointments in a year (30) than Barack Obama has made during his entire presidency."

/thread - how did this get this many posts - all Presidents have done this - it's nothing new - if anything Obama has shown some restraint in not using this more often.

This is another reason why I can't get too worked up over this, even if it's technically illegal. Obama has been pretty restrained on recess appointments, and it's arguably better to make appointments which may be technically illegal than to allow a legitimately authorized federal bureau to become inoperable. Both are bad things to do, but one of them affects actual people, employers and employees. Bottom line, the damned Senate needs to be doing its job rather than having pro forma sessions to avoid penalties, and every Senator needs to have an honest hearing and an honest up or down vote on every nominee.

 

[nageov3t]

if Democrats are all on board with this action and it's perfectly legal, how's your reaction going to be when President Jeb Bush takes Congress breaking for the weekend as meaning they're no longer in session and packs every Federal Agency with his cronies?

edit: don't get me wrong... I understand why he did it. personally, I think all presidential appointments deserve an up or down vote; I thought that when Bush was in the White House and I still think that with Obama in the White House. but I think this is just yet another in a long line of Executive Branch power grabs.

we'll defend it when "our" team does it, but just like Obama didn't give back any of the powers that Bush grabbed, I'm sure the next guy won't either.

 

[Patranus]

Hope the Democrats remember this if/when the GOP take the White House.

 

[theeedude]

Hope the Democrats remember this if/when the GOP take the White House.

Hope they also remember to filibuster the GOP like the Republicans have been doing to them.

 

[woolfe9999]

if Democrats are all on board with this action and it's perfectly legal, how's your reaction going to be when President Jeb Bush takes Congress breaking for the weekend as meaning they're no longer in session and packs every Federal Agency with his cronies?

If he's appointing people who the dems think are unqualified, then they'll have a right to squawk. If he's appointing people that they have admitted are qualified, then not so much. Not so sure about the NLRB appointments, but in the case of Cordray, the Senate GOP were not doing their jobs in good faith. When a bill is passed into law through appropriate process they are not supposed to use confirmation to block implementation of it. Confirmation was intended to vet the individual chosen, not as a second bite at the apple to challenge the underlying legislation.

 

[woolfe9999]

There is actually no precedent on this, but that's a bit beside the point.

Speaking of checks and balances, the President has the explicitly stated Article II authority to appoint people when Congress is not in session. It's one of the few enumerated powers he has, actually. By any reasonable definition of 'in session', Congress is not currently in session.

Do you believe that despite not conducting any business the Legislative Branch of government should have the ability to unilaterally and permanently eliminate one of the Executive Branch's explicitly granted constitutional powers?

This is a potent argument, and it's why they'll never get any traction if they challenge these appointments in court. A precedent which allows pro forma sessions to unilaterally deprive another branch of government of an enumerated power is obviously Constitutionally impermissible.

Edit: your valid reasoning here should also give you a clue as to why the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

 

[sunzt]

Hope they also remember to filibuster the GOP like the Republicans have been doing to them.

 

[werepossum]

lol +1

 

[Jhhnn]

There is actually no precedent on this, but that's a bit beside the point.

Speaking of checks and balances, the President has the explicitly stated Article II authority to appoint people when Congress is not in session. It's one of the few enumerated powers he has, actually. By any reasonable definition of 'in session', Congress is not currently in session.

Do you believe that despite not conducting any business the Legislative Branch of government should have the ability to unilaterally and permanently eliminate one of the Executive Branch's explicitly granted constitutional powers?

Not "Congress", but quite specifically "the Senate"-

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

HOR Repubs' ploy here is really an attempt to usurp the powers of the Senate and the Executive, but it won't work because of the 3 day provision cited earlier...