• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

how about this? Obama promises no more recess appointments if the GOP allows folks to get their up or down vote.
 
jackalope said:
I'm no fan of the GOP, but they kinda do have cause to gripe. Should it come to a court case, I kinda think they'd lose, but the 'pro forma session' of Congress to block recess appts has been used in the past. Interesting that noone ever felt like challenging it before. I find the fight that Obama chose to pick over this fascinating.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a big deal....but I do think it's entirely political. I think he wants that new department in the news. He wants the Republicans to be angry that he's appointed someone to head a department that protects consumers. I think it's an easy way to try to portray Republicans as the protector of banks and him as looking out for the little guy.

He also picked someone that's very respectable. He didn't pick a bomb thrower like Warren.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

justabubba said:
here is the best take i have found on the matter of recess appointments:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

it would seem harry reid initiated a process to impair bush's opportunity to effect recess appointments which the republicans have now turned against Obama
will be interesting how this will play our. my speculation is that Obama is going to have to ask for forgiveness instead of permission
his recess appointments may very possibly be found unConstitutional
Click to expand...

I've seen that report, it's interesting. The last parts, starting on page 7, about whether or not Congress can prevent recess appts with pro forma sessions outlines the recent attempts by Congress to do this, but not whether or not the pro forma sessions would stand a constitutional test in court.

It's all fascinating to me.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
And the even bigger issue is why the Senate can't just take a damn vote on appointees instead of either opposing everyone Obama sends over (this is his second try with the consumer agency) or putting holds on nominees as bargaining chips on sometimes completely unrelated issues. If the Senate would at least hold votes, let alone actually confirm some of these people, the president wouldn't have to do all this recess appointing stuff just to keep the government functioning.
Click to expand...


cuz the Senate is broken.
 
iguanaman said:
Congress has an approval rating of 9%, is that how low do the Reps. set the bar? They are working for the 9% who approve of their behavior?
Click to expand...

If people are tired of government they win. Their whole platform is government sucks, those guys in Washington are idiots.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

jackalope said:
Actually, no, they do not have to force the filibustering side to hold the floor. That is how it SHOULD work, but it doesn't. There is no longer any such thing as a filibuster like you may have remembered from movies, or from history books. It's all bull****, and it's the reason the Senate is broken.
Click to expand...

Kind of funny sounding - the Senate can't function because of the LACK of the filibuster. But you're right.

(Bernie Sanders did do a real filibuster in a few years back btw).
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
Kind of funny sounding - the Senate can't function because of the LACK of the filibuster. But you're right.

(Bernie Sanders did do a real filibuster in a few years back btw).
Click to expand...


He did. And it was per their rules, not actually a real filibuster. Shows just how screwed up the Senate is ...
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Imnukingfutz said:
They cant stop anyone from being appointed, they are the minority party in the Senate. They cant even hold up the nomination in committee...they dont chair it.

51 votes gets the nomination and with Biden to break any tie, they are as good as confirmed.
Click to expand...

Except it takes 60 votes to prevent a filibuster, not 51.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't think it's a big deal....but I do think it's entirely political. I think he wants that new department in the news. He wants the Republicans to be angry that he's appointed someone to head a department that protects consumers. I think it's an easy way to try to portray Republicans as the protector of banks and him as looking out for the little guy.

He also picked someone that's very respectable. He didn't pick a bomb thrower like Warren.
Click to expand...

I was gonna like your post until you called Liz a bomb thrower ;).

Elizabeth Warren is simply awesome.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

jackalope said:
He did. And it was per their rules, not actually a real filibuster. Shows just how screwed up the Senate is ...
Click to expand...

No, it was real. He just snuck it in. A filibuster is allowed under the rules, it's just that nobody bothers any more, and nobody bothers to give anyone the opportunity either (they just do cloture votes).

It was 8 1/2 hours.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't think it's a big deal....but I do think it's entirely political. I think he wants that new department in the news. He wants the Republicans to be angry that he's appointed someone to head a department that protects consumers. I think it's an easy way to try to portray Republicans as the protector of banks and him as looking out for the little guy.

He also picked someone that's very respectable. He didn't pick a bomb thrower like Warren.
Click to expand...

So you give no credence at all to the Occam's Razor hypothesis that the main purpose of making the appointment was to finally put someone in charge of the Consumer Protection Bureau? How sad that we've all become so jaded.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Imnukingfutz said:
They can filabuster the vote and delay it, but they can not stop it. All Harry Reid has to do is call the vote, the Repubs can only hold the floor for so long until the vote comes up.
Click to expand...

If that's what the Dems want to do. But in practical terms, they know you can't run a Senate by constantly running up against filibusters, so they do endless cloture votes instead. They would only knowingly push a filibuster for a really important issue to them.
 
jackalope said:
I was gonna like your post until you called Liz a bomb thrower ;).

Elizabeth Warren is simply awesome.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the Republicans' Jihad against Warren is going to bite them on the butt when she takes Scott Brown's Senate seat.
 
jackalope said:
I was gonna like your post until you called Liz a bomb thrower ;).

Elizabeth Warren is simply awesome.
Click to expand...

Warrens says lots of reasonable, rational, smart things calling for making the lives of average Americans better and stuff like that.

To them, that's throwing bombs.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
No, it was real. He just snuck it in. A filibuster is allowed under the rules, it's just that nobody bothers any more, and nobody bothers to give anyone the opportunity either (they just do cloture votes).

It was 8 1/2 hours.
Click to expand...


I remember it - it was epic ... and awesome. But it wasn't 'technically' a filibuster, even though it's the only real filibuster we've seen in decades. I can't remember the arcane explanations for why - I'll try to find something on it in a bit.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't think it's a big deal....but I do think it's entirely political. I think he wants that new department in the news. He wants the Republicans to be angry that he's appointed someone to head a department that protects consumers. I think it's an easy way to try to portray Republicans as the protector of banks and him as looking out for the little guy.
Click to expand...

Well, no, he just wanted the damn agency to finally have someone in charge of it instead of waiting on the idiotic Senate to do its job.
 
AdamT said:
Ironically, the Republicans' Jihad against Warren is going to bite them on the butt when she takes Scott Brown's Senate seat.
Click to expand...

misterman said:
Warrens says lots of reasonable, rational, smart things calling for making the lives of average Americans better and stuff like that.

To them, that's throwing bombs.
Click to expand...


AYUP! to both !!
 
misterman said:
Warrens says lots of reasonable, rational, smart things calling for making the lives of average Americans better and stuff like that.

To them, that's throwing bombs.
Click to expand...

to me, she is one of those rare individuals who is able to take a complex subject and present it so that it becomes easy to understand

those who oppose her i believe are those who do not want the public to hear the truths she has to offer
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

jackalope said:
I remember it - it was epic ... and awesome. But it wasn't 'technically' a filibuster, even though it's the only real filibuster we've seen in decades. I can't remember the arcane explanations for why - I'll try to find something on it in a bit.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in that. (I might be the only one who is!) Let me know what you find please.

I remember D'Amato going at it for the typewriter makers or whatever back in 92.
 
danarhea said:
Here's the key. There was NO pro-forma session that day.
Click to expand...

Yes there was. The day prior provided a window as used by Teddy Roosevelt. But the appointment would have run out at the end of 2012. This one now goes to the end of 2013.

Obama went nuclear solely to try to pad his reelection campaign. He doesn't give a crap about the Republic. Just his being dick-tater (as in penis potato) in chief.
 
AdamT said:
So you give no credence at all to the Occam's Razor hypothesis that the main purpose of making the appointment was to finally put someone in charge of the Consumer Protection Bureau? How said that we've all become so jaded.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting read

POLITICO Huddle - POLITICO.com

Some parts I found interesting

“In one fell swoop, Obama managed to tap into voter frustration with Washington, distance himself from an unpopular Congress, buck up the liberal base and reassert himself as a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt, fighting for a “fair deal” for the middle class. He even stole some of the spotlight from Republicans a day after the Iowa caucuses. The way his advisers see it, it would have been political malpractice to do anything less than circumvent the Senate Republican minority, which blocked Cordray not because they found him unqualified but because they didn’t like the law that created the bureau. Republicans, in their view, gave Obama little choice.
Click to expand...

Three years after pledging a new era of post-partisan cooperation, President Barack Obama on Wednesday declared war with congressional Republicans by unilaterally installing his nominee to head a new consumer protection bureau. And the White House sees only political gold in doing so. Obama inflamed Washington Republicans by using a rarely invoked legal argument to appoint former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray — a move ensuring that an irate Congress may truly do nothing this year except extend the payroll tax cut. … It was the latest milestone in Obama’s journey from bipartisan conciliator to partisan agitator, perhaps the starkest break to date from his campaign promises to change the tone in Washington
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Kudos for Obama!!
 
misterman said:
Well, no, he just wanted the damn agency to finally have someone in charge of it instead of waiting on the idiotic Senate to do its job.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't say entirely political. I mispoke. The appointment needed to happen, Republicans have become the new "do-nothing" Congress. I think this is a fight he is willing to have. He's not someone that generally will willy nilly thumb his nose at Republicans. I think for political purposes he probably is willing to have this fight.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
I'd be interested in that. (I might be the only one who is!) Let me know what you find please.

I remember D'Amato going at it for the typewriter makers or whatever back in 92.
Click to expand...


:)


I found a couple articles. It sounds like the reasons are actually technical, and complicated, but I think it's because he wasn't technically holding up debate, as he took to the floor when nothing else was scheduled. I think it was on a Friday, and the vote was scheduled for Monday.



Bernie Sanders Holds Old-School Filibuster Against Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal
By Stephanie Condon


(snip ... )

Sanders' efforts don't amount to a true filibuster, since he is not holding up any Senate debate, and there are no other senators wishing to speak. The Senate isn't scheduled to take up Mr. Obama's plan for a vote until Monday.

"You can call what i am doing today whatever you want, you it call it a filibuster, you can call it a very long speech..." Sanders posted on Twitter today.

Bernie Sanders Holds Old-School Filibuster Against Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...


Is #Filibernie A Filibuster?
Brian Beutler | December 10, 2010, 6:14PM


The short answer is "no."

The long answer is a (to most people) really boring history lesson about Senate rules, and the creation of "cloture."

(snip ... )

So even though what Sanders is doing now looks like a filibuster, and is in the spirit of the filibuster in its early days, and is what most laypeople think of when they hear the word "filibuster," it is not a filibuster. And it won't be unless he can keep Reid from rounding up 60 votes next week -- in which case he wouldn't need to be on the floor in the first place.

Is #Filibernie A Filibuster? | Brian Beutler
Click to expand...



ps - tell me about D'Amato and they typewriters! I don't know that story .... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom