Obama recess appointing Cordray

[First]

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.

You should learn to formulate your sentences better, as you're not quite aware that your statements are written as facts. Get it? Boy I hope so.

 

[Craig234]

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.

It's a bit funny to me how I don't remember one person on the 'right' - even those who consider themselves more willing to say when the right is wrong - mentioning the Republicans' 'ignoring precedent' and 'abusing power' and 'grabbing power' in their obstructionism when criticizing Obama for this - when whatever point the might have should certainly note the context and how Obama is just trying to counter Republican obstructionism, not to 'get around Congress's power to approve nominess'.

That's the difference - Bush appointed Bolton with a recess appointment specifically to get around the Senate's right to approve, he appointed judges who the Senate was unwillng to approve to get aroung aroung their constitutional power - but in this case, this guy *got 53 votes approving him* in the Senate, and the Republicans are abusing the filibuster to block any nominess not to 'advise and consent' on a good nominee but to prevent the President from getting anyone approved and keep the agency from functioning.

Very different situations, but you don't see the 'right' telling the truth about it.

Come on, Loki. tell the whole story.

 

[xBiffx]

You should learn to formulate your sentences better, as you're not quite aware that your statements are written as facts. Get it? Boy I hope so.

Exactly where did I state that what I said was fact. The Chicago Bears are terrible. Is that a fact? No. Get a life, kid.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly where did I state that what I said was fact. The Chicago Bears are terrible. Is that a fact? No. Get a life, kid.

Definite fact.

 

[Ausm]

Corday gets to work..FINALLY!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/cordray_gets_to_work034550.php

Suck on that Republicans...

 

[Ausm]

Definite fact.

Don't waste your time arguing with that asshole.

 

[xBiffx]

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.

The problem with your logic is your first sentence. The Senate did not adjourn for more than three days. They adjourned for three days, held a pro forma session on the third day, effectively negating a recess, and then adjourned for three days again, rinse, repeat. Same thing that has been done before to prevent a recess.

 

[Ausm]

CFPB website with links to report abusive practices.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

 

[Craig234]

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?

Actually, I think a case can be made for just that - at least if they do something to require votes for nominees.

Seems to me the recess appointment was never intended to be an end run about Senate approval - that was a power intended for the Senate.

That recess appontments were meant for the logistical issues at the time - what if an official resigned when the Senate was out for a long time and the government needed a replacement in the position? This was a temporary fix. Times have changed and the logistical issues are not the same.

Now, I haven't researched whether the founders actually anticipated the Senate not voting on nominees and this being used as a counter, but I assume that's not the case.

So the recess appointment power seems to me to be one there's no problem in abolishing IF the need of people who got around on horses is no longer the issue with jet travel.

But given the problem that's come to light of the Senate not just using its power to approve but being obstructionist, I can see also doing something about that.

If both are addressed, why not get rid of the recess appointment? The founding fathers wanted the Senate to have approval of some nominees, no reason to undermine that.

Admittedly the power has been used for good causes - to get around bigotry of race and gays for example - but is that power of the President to bypass the Senate really a basic power of the Presidency to protect? You could make the case as well that while it's not a basic power of the office, it's worth preserving given the limited duration of the recess appointments. That's just a political judgement which way to go. But I do not view recess appointments as a basic power of the presidency, just as one of those 'accidents'.

 

[xBiffx]

Definite fact.

Please don't feed the troll. I don't need to lookup fact for you. Making a statement here does not mean it is a fact, everyone knows this besides the troll.

 

[xBiffx]

Don't waste your time arguing with that asshole.

Typical liberal resorts to name calling. You mad?

 

[First]

Exactly where did I state that what I said was fact. The Chicago Bears are terrible. Is that a fact? No. Get a life, kid.

Yeah, how could I possibly think you were stating something you believed to be fact when you said "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."

Sorry guess I don't speak tard.

 

[Ausm]

Typical liberal resorts to name calling. You mad?

No that was my definition of a fact....

 

[shadow9d9]

Sad state of affairs when the President has to shred the Constitution to make appointments that a Senate which his own party controls can't agree on. Welcome to the Dictatorship of the States of America.

You need 60 to "control" nowadays. Purposely misleading and distorting is the equivalent of being a liar.

 

[werepossum]

It's a bit funny to me how I don't remember one person on the 'right' - even those who consider themselves more willing to say when the right is wrong - mentioning the Republicans' 'ignoring precedent' and 'abusing power' and 'grabbing power' in their obstructionism when criticizing Obama for this - when whatever point the might have should certainly note the context and how Obama is just trying to counter Republican obstructionism, not to 'get around Congress's power to approve nominess'.

That's the difference - Bush appointed Bolton with a recess appointment specifically to get around the Senate's right to approve, he appointed judges who the Senate was unwillng to approve to get aroung aroung their constitutional power - but in this case, this guy *got 53 votes approving him* in the Senate, and the Republicans are abusing the filibuster to block any nominess not to 'advise and consent' on a good nominee but to prevent the President from getting anyone approved and keep the agency from functioning.

Very different situations, but you don't see the 'right' telling the truth about it.

Come on, Loki. tell the whole story.

Same situation, actually. Reid refused to let Bolton have an up or down vote. Republicans refused to let Cordray have an up or down vote. The only real difference is that Bush waited for a recess, whereas Obama decided to call an adjournment a recess. (Google sine die adjournment to see the difference.) The NLRB appointments are different, as the Senate never had time to consider their appointments. But it's arguably the same principle, since the Senate had not acted to fill the vacancies to a quorum level necessary to keep the NLRB functioning.

Clinton justified the idea of intersession recesses by using Article I, Section 5, Clause 4. Since any break of more than three days must be by agreement between House and Senate, any break of more than three days must therefore be a recess. Other Presidents had also used intersession recesses to make recess appointments. None have used breaks of less than three days, although clearly any break other than that between sessions is exceeding Constitutional authority.

One logical consequence of considering any break in a session to be a recess would be that the next pro forma day would then be a session, so any appointments made during the intersession recess would be voided if not ratified by the Senate on the next pro forma day or session. From Article II, Section 2:

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.

Clearly the intent was to allow the President to make appointments when the Senate was in recess between sessions, so if an adjournment Monday and Tuesday is a recess, then Wednesday must be their next session.

In any case, both parties have acted very badly here, and arguably President Obama has the moral high ground - such as it is.

Some interesting reading from Reid's Senate, for those who care.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem with your logic is your first sentence. The Senate did not adjourn for more than three days. They adjourned for three days, held a pro forma session on the third day, effectively negating a recess, and then adjourned for three days again, rinse, repeat. Same thing that has been done before to prevent a recess.

Deliberately obtuse, I see. You'll actually need to cite a source to confirm that assertion- which you can't, because it's not accurate.

The Senate is in recess any time a majority declares it to be so. In the past, when the Senate itself blocked recess appointments, there were pro forma sessions continuously. They didn't recess at all.

This time, the HOR is attempting to usurp the authority of the Senate to allow recess appointments, except that they're thwarted by the 3 day rule. The Senate, following the Constitution, recesses for 3 days, meets pro forma, recesses for another 3 & so on.

The Constitution does not restrict executive power to make recess appointments in those 3 day periods at all-

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.

It's not like he has to wait 3 days before making a recess appointment when the Senate goes into recess. He could be poised to put pen to paper the moment the gavel falls. Any President.

Repubs will rave & make claims to the contrary, as you're doing, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on, & they know it. It's all theatre for the Faithful, a vector to feed their outrage addiction.

 

[Jhhnn]

Same situation, actually. Reid refused to let Bolton have an up or down vote. Republicans refused to let Cordray have an up or down vote. The only real difference is that Bush waited for a recess, whereas Obama decided to call an adjournment a recess. (Google sine die adjournment to see the difference.) The NLRB appointments are different, as the Senate never had time to consider their appointments. But it's arguably the same principle, since the Senate had not acted to fill the vacancies to a quorum level necessary to keep the NLRB functioning.

Clinton justified the idea of intersession recesses by using Article I, Section 5, Clause 4. Since any break of more than three days must be by agreement between House and Senate, any break of more than three days must therefore be a recess. Other Presidents had also used intersession recesses to make recess appointments. None have used breaks of less than three days, although clearly any break other than that between sessions is exceeding Constitutional authority.

One logical consequence of considering any break in a session to be a recess would be that the next pro forma day would then be a session, so any appointments made during the intersession recess would be voided if not ratified by the Senate on the next pro forma day or session. From Article II, Section 2:

Clearly the intent was to allow the President to make appointments when the Senate was in recess between sessions, so if an adjournment Monday and Tuesday is a recess, then Wednesday must be their next session.

In any case, both parties have acted very badly here, and arguably President Obama has the moral high ground - such as it is.

Some interesting reading from Reid's Senate, for those who care.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

Adjournment sine die occurs only after an election, and the date of the new session of Congress is previously established by law.

The point about appointments expiring with each pro forma session is interesting, if esoteric. The president need merely wait until the 3 day period prior to the resumption of the regular Senate meetings to get around that. Even if Cordray's appointment is ultimately turned back, the new agency has a leader for a couple of days, the requirements of the bill as passed are met & the agency can proceed as intended.

In yo' face, Republican Biatches!

Which is the attitude Obama should have taken a long time ago... it's not like his predecessor didn't act that way...

 

[werepossum]

Adjournment sine die occurs only after an election, and the date of the new session of Congress is previously established by law.

The point about appointments expiring with each pro forma session is interesting, if esoteric. The president need merely wait until the 3 day period prior to the resumption of the regular Senate meetings to get around that. Even if Cordray's appointment is ultimately turned back, the new agency has a leader for a couple of days, the requirements of the bill as passed are met & the agency can proceed as intended.

In yo' face, Republican Biatches!

Which is the attitude Obama should have taken a long time ago... it's not like his predecessor didn't act that way...

Actually, when the Democrats were doing the exact same thing, refusing to hold hearings and votes on his nominees and holding pro forma sessions to prevent recess nominations, his predecessor didn't act that way. That's kind of the point; this is new.

Personally I think we need an Amendment stating that the Senate MUST hold hearings on any nominee within one hundred eighty days of receiving the nomination and MUST hold an up or down vote within six weeks of beginning the hearings, with NO filibuster, and that if the Senate does not meet these requirements, then the nominee is automatically instated as a recess appointment for the remainder of the session - and the Senate majority leader must step down for the remainder of the session, with an immediate replacement election. There's no excuse for this bullshit, on either side. If you're taking the damned money, do your damned job.

And in Cordray's case, I believe the trigger is Senate confirmation, not an appointment.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, when the Democrats were doing the exact same thing, refusing to hold hearings and votes on his nominees and holding pro forma sessions to prevent recess nominations, his predecessor didn't act that way. That's kind of the point; this is new.

Negative. A democratic Senate under Bush refused to go into recess at all so as to thwart Bush's nominees. That's the right of the majority to do so. This time, the Repub HOR, who have no say wrt nominees, forces the Dem Senate to recess for only 3 days at a time, per the Constitution.

As for the rest of it, the Senate has the Constitutional duty to make their own rules, and they have. Thse rules have served reasonably well until recent Repub minorities have exploited them. The obvious intent of Repubs to abuse those rules to the detriment of the nation is an issue for the voters, who should be appalled by the conduct of their representatives from the Republican party.

Vote accordingly.

 

[werepossum]

Negative. A democratic Senate under Bush refused to go into recess at all so as to thwart Bush's nominees. That's the right of the majority to do so. This time, the Repub HOR, who have no say wrt nominees, forces the Dem Senate to recess for only 3 days at a time, per the Constitution.

As for the rest of it, the Senate has the Constitutional duty to make their own rules, and they have. Thse rules have served reasonably well until recent Repub minorities have exploited them. The obvious intent of Repubs to abuse those rules to the detriment of the nation is an issue for the voters, who should be appalled by the conduct of their representatives from the Republican party.

Vote accordingly.

Have you EVER encountered a situation where you thought the Republicans were in the right?

Even cartoon characters have more depth, dude.

 

[theeedude]

This is what the Do Nothing Republicans do "in session."
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/202769-republicans-mute-dem-leaders-on-house-floor

After the daily prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, Clyburn rose to speak, but presiding officer Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) deemed Clyburn "out of order," saying no business was to be conducted during the pro forma session. Denham then gaveled the session closed. The entire process lasted two minutes and 35 seconds.

Oh yeah, they aren't in recess, they are just are not conducting any business.