Obama recess appointing Cordray

[Fern]

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.

Yeah, the same question occurred to me.

Looking to forward to hearing the answer.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.

Interesting.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ential-nominations-and-withdrawal-sent-senate

The 2 or the 3 recess appointments were nominated less then three weeks ago. The was no time for the Senate to Advise and Constent. What Obama has done is a abuse of power.

You do make a good point there.

Yeah, looks like it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

People in the US are well known to hate the political fighting Washington. Yet here, people cheer it on like it's some of sports event.

Fern

 

[First]

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, the legality has not been vetted, I'm afraid to tell you my ever so slow friend. This was discussed and linked pages ago.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

You'll have to talk to yourself then, since xBiffx once said "What the President did is not legal".

Durrr.

 

[Fern]

I follow politics and and am familiar with the typical BS'ing.

But this strikes me as a bit special. This administration seems the most aggressive to-date in pushing the envelope towards potential illegalities. Going against your own Justice Dept and clear precedent is concerning IMO.

And doing so for political points moreso.

I bet there were other solutions. Seems to me the Dept would exist and function without a confirmation or recess appointment. Looks like the administration is under the Treas Dept until an appointment takes place. So, assign the guy to the Treas Dept to run things from there until he's confirmed etc.

When the govt is proudly defiant to itself (or one branch to another) and apparently breaking rules what kind of message does that send? Are they showing us it's OK to be defiant to the govt itself when we don't agree with it? Is it OK for us to ignore or break laws we don't agree with?

On days like this I'd like to nuke Washington from orbit.

Fern

 

[BoomerD]

Waidaminit...it's OK if a Republican does this...but not when a Democrat does it?

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

How Often Have Recent Presidents Made Recess Appointments?
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.

 

[werepossum]

I follow politics and and am familiar with the typical BS'ing.

But this strikes me as a bit special. This administration seems the most aggressive to-date in pushing the envelope towards potential illegalities. Going against your own Justice Dept and clear precedent is concerning IMO.

And doing so for political points moreso.

I bet there were other solutions. Seems to me the Dept would exist and function without a confirmation or recess appointment. Looks like the administration is under the Treas Dept until an appointment takes place. So, assign the guy to the Treas Dept to run things from there until he's confirmed etc.

When the govt is proudly defiant to itself (or one branch to another) and apparently breaking rules what kind of message does that send? Are they showing us it's OK to be defiant to the govt itself when we don't agree with it? Is it OK for us to ignore or break laws we don't agree with?

On days like this I'd like to nuke Washington from orbit.

Fern

I largely agree except I think Bush was equally bad at this, just in different ways and for ideological (and largely selfless) rather than political reasons. And while I don't agree that recess appointments should be made when it's not really a recess and therefore technically illegal, I also don't agree with not giving nominees a reasonably timely hearing with an up or down vote, or with fighting a lawfully passed agency (even one of whose existence I disapprove) by refusing to consider nominees or by having pro forma sessions. So ultimately I can't care much either way on this.

 

[werepossum]

Waidaminit...it's OK if a Republican does this...but not when a Democrat does it?

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

I'm sure Obama will make many more now that he's discovered how to make them from the golf course.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's the HOR Repubs' dishonest justification, with posturing & posing-

http://landry.house.gov/press-release/landry-presides-over-house-blocks-recess-appointments

Here's Article 1 section 5-

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec5

In other words, the President has a 3 day window in which he can make recess appointments, always, for all presidents, if the Senate is adjourned. It can't be done if the Senate stays in session, however. The Senate adjourns repeatedly for the days between the current pro forma sessions, giving the President multiple bites at the apple.

"Adjourn for 3 days"

*Recess appointments*

"Reconvene for pro forma session, adjourn for 3 days"

*Recess appointments*

So forth & so on...

 

[Darwin333]

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.

You honestly think the American public knows that they didn't keep their mouths shut? Same as they don't realize the indefinite detention Obama signed....

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I largely agree except I think Bush was equally bad at this, just in different ways and for ideological (and largely selfless) rather than political reasons. And while I don't agree that recess appointments should be made when it's not really a recess and therefore technically illegal, I also don't agree with not giving nominees a reasonably timely hearing with an up or down vote, or with fighting a lawfully passed agency (even one of whose existence I disapprove) by refusing to consider nominees or by having pro forma sessions. So ultimately I can't care much either way on this.

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.

 

[Darwin333]

Here's the HOR Repubs' dishonest justification, with posturing & posing-

http://landry.house.gov/press-release/landry-presides-over-house-blocks-recess-appointments

Here's Article 1 section 5-



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec5

In other words, the President has a 3 day window in which he can make recess appointments, always, for all presidents, if the Senate is adjourned. It can't be done if the Senate stays in session, however. The Senate adjourns repeatedly for the days between the current pro forma sessions, giving the President multiple bites at the apple.

"Adjourn for 3 days"

*Recess appointments*

"Reconvene for pro forma session, adjourn for 3 days"

*Recess appointments*

So forth & so on...

Wouldn't "more than 3 days" = 3 days + X? As in not 3 days?

Not arguing, just questioning.

 

[theeedude]

You honestly think the American public knows that they didn't keep their mouths shut? Same as they don't realize the indefinite detention Obama signed....

Bankers are about as popular as Congress.
There are going to be people who think it's bankers vs Obama, and there are going to be people who are going to think it's bankers and GOP vs Obama. First one is good narrative for Obama, second one is good for Obama and bad for GOP. Either way benefits Obama, it's just a question of by how much.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wouldn't "more than 3 days" = 3 days + X? As in not 3 days?

Not arguing, just questioning.

I think that every new pro forma session called to order & then adjourned would create another 3 day window...

Hey- it's the Repubs' game, and the Constitution's rules, so they're left with a dishonest losing strategy. The Faithful won't look any deeper than the mealy mouthed pronouncements of their leaders, unfortunately.

When the Senate stays in session, rather than the HOR, it's a whole different game.

 

[theeedude]

If the Congress is in session as the Republicans claim, they have nothing on their agenda and are doing nothing. Which means they are literally a do nothing Congress.

 

[xBiffx]

No, the legality has not been vetted, I'm afraid to tell you my ever so slow friend. This was discussed and linked pages ago.




You'll have to talk to yourself then, since xBiffx once said "What the President did is not legal".

Durrr.

I guess you missed the fact that probably 90% of what goes on in these forums is opinion. Sorry for expressing mine. How dare I.

 

[sportage]

It's done. It's legal. No court will rule on senate proceedures. End of issue.

 

[umbrella39]

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.

You have tossed enough poop for one day... PLONK

 

[theeedude]

Should someone sue the Obama administration over this, they should invite Republican Senators to testify under oath whether the Senate was in session, and if it was, why they weren't in Washington doing their jobs.

 

[Ausm]

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.

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

 

[FerrelGeek]

Good
The more he pisses you Republicans off the better, a true Messiah :thumbsup:

You are joking, right? If not, you're a sick puppy. What woud you say if a republican 'messiah' was doing this?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Did Republicans advice and consent on the guy nominated 1 year ago? Did they advice and consent on previous Obama NRLB nominees?
They have demonstrated their intent to block the agency from functioning by refusing to allow the Senate to vote on nominees.

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

 

[fskimospy]

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

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.

 

[monovillage]

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.

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 ?