• 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.

Moderator's Warning:
2 threads merged
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

The GOP refuses to appoint ANYONE to be the head of this new financial agency. He could be the reincarnation of Milton Friedman or Ronald Reagan, and they would still say "no".

And even more, they have a few guys show up to gavel in & out in the Senate, so technically its in session, preventing Obama from making a recess appointment.

Clearly, the GOP is playing juvenile games with our government. So Obama said "no more games".

I am proud of Obama for doing what he did. He finally showed balls.
 
Spare me your being ignorant as to process. Bolton was not appointed in contradiction to standard recess protocols.

And who exactly started the contradiction to "standard recess proticols"? It was the Republicans in the House who decided to game the system by "staying in session" when they really were in recess.
Obama simply called their bluff and stood up for his rights as President. Taking away a Presidents rights is not standard protocol is it?
 
This is an interesting read

POLITICO Huddle - POLITICO.com

Some parts I found interesting

Good find. I agree wholeheartedly. It took three years for Obama's testicles to descend, but it appears that he's finally gotten the message that there is absolutely no benefit to trying to placate Republicans; they are going to oppose him no matter what he does.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

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.


The appointment of Cordroy really has little or nothing to do with "keeping the government running". And the GOP has no corner on the market for blocking appointments. Both parties are quite experienced at the game......
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

The appointment of Cordroy really has little or nothing to do with "keeping the government running".

Of course it does. The appointment was necessary for the establishment of the Consumer Protection Bureau. It has been kept from running because of the blockage.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Of course it does. The appointment was necessary for the establishment of the Consumer Protection Bureau. It has been kept from running because of the blockage.

and that's why they did it.

they don't have the votes to kill the agency, so they instead found a back-ass way of hobbling the new agency.

if Republicans can use parliamentary tricks to play politics, then so can the Democrats.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

and that's why they did it.

they don't have the votes to kill the agency, so they instead found a back-ass way of hobbling the new agency.

if Republicans can use parliamentary tricks to play politics, then so can the Democrats.

My understanding is that the Republicans were not trying to kill the agency. They were requiring structural changes in the bureau which would put a check on the amount of power it was grantiing itself and to Obama. Obama refused to accommodate those demands. Hence the standoff. Its Washington politics, but there are two sides to the story.



"In May, 44 of the 47 Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), sent a letter to Obama vowing to block any nominee to serve as director of the CFPB absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget."

http://speier.house.gov/index.php?o...its-cfpb&catid=2:jackie-in-the-news&Itemid=15
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

"In May, 44 of the 47 Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), sent a letter to Obama vowing to block any nominee to serve as director of the CFPB absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget."

Personally I think that is perfectly reasonable to want. Why can't Obama compromise on it? Like I said before, he compromises on things that he shouldn't and he doesn't compromise on things that he should.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget

That is basically just a long winded way to say they want to kill it. A department that is answerable to Congress can't take on corporations. Given the amount of control corporations have over the entire political process, you would ideally want it to be as independent as humanly possible from the political process.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

The Republicans were trying to kill the agency. They wanted a series of changes to the legislation that would have made it so weak, that every banker, businessman or con man with a friend in the US Chamber of Commerce could go to their congressmen and get anything the agency tried to do reversed.

The wanted an agency that would be vulnurable to congressional and lobbyist pressure. Remember that this same group of Republicans are busy trying to undo what little finacial reform has taken place since the crash too.

The Republicans wanted no agency at all, but short of that, they would take one they could bully and emasculate (and spend the next 30 years proposing to do away with).
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

..."In May, 44 of the 47 Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), sent a letter to Obama vowing to block any nominee to serve as director of the CFPB absent key changes, including eliminating the director's position in favor of a board and forcing the agency to be dependent on Congressionally appropriated funds for its operating budget."

GOP Blocks Cordray, Limits CFPB

they want an agency to have no director? that's pretty stupid.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

That is basically just a long winded way to say they want to kill it. A department that is answerable to Congress can't take on corporations. Given the amount of control corporations have over the entire political process, you would ideally want it to be as independent as humanly possible from the political process.

Yet, we are supposed to then put faith in such as a Czar again ? Which is less transparent ? You do not fix broken government by adding more broken, and now less accountable, government.

How did using the NLRB to harass Boeing work out ? That was one huge use of an agency solely for political gain. And how about our own DoJ and Fast and Furious ?

Our system is for Representative government, not Czars. We just got screwed worse. BOHICA.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

they want an agency to have no director? that's pretty stupid.

Bull****. They wanted a board, so that not just one person, a Czar, could wield so much power and not be accountable.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Bull****. They wanted a board, so that not just one person, a Czar, could wield so much power and not be accountable.

Accountable? How is a board of appointees more accountable? Accountable is a code word for weak.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

and that's why they did it.

they don't have the votes to kill the agency, so they instead found a back-ass way of hobbling the new agency.

if Republicans can use parliamentary tricks to play politics, then so can the Democrats.
Parliamentary tricks aren't against the law.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Accountable? How is a board of appointees more accountable? Accountable is a code word for weak.

And yet our Senate and Congress work in exactly the same fashion as a board. Hmm....
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Accountable? How is a board of appointees more accountable? Accountable is a code word for weak.

Its listed earlier in the discussion. The new agency is funded by the Federal Reserve. Our Constitution was set up to give the House the power of the purse, and consequently, we the people, as those are the folks we can most often influence with our votes.

Show me where you influence the Federal Reserve ? Ron Paul wants to abolish the damn thing, and I almost concur with him on that. In any case, show me how "we the people" have any influence at all over the FR. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

they want an agency to have no director? that's pretty stupid.


Get the impression that the goal of the GOP was to avoid having a large powerful new self funded bureau controlled by Obama that had no accountability to Congress. Am fairly sure that politics is also in the formula.

btw.....The Director/CEO of many operations are often accountable to a Board of Directors. Not really a farfetched idea.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

And yet our Senate and Congress work in exactly the same fashion as a board. Hmm....

An ELECTED one. In other words, actually accountable.

The GOP wants to weaken or kill this agency, and they'll use any excuse to do it.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Get the impression that the goal of the GOP was to avoid having a large powerful new self funded bureau controlled by Obama that had no accountability to Congress.

Of course it would be accountable to Congress. Congress could overturn any of its decisions or even abolish it. Congress has plenary power.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Its listed earlier in the discussion. The new agency is funded by the Federal Reserve. Our Constitution was set up to give the House the power of the purse, and consequently, we the people, as those are the folks we can most often influence with our votes.

So your making up this new doctrine that any agency that doesn't get its funds directly from Congress is unconstitutional? Be careful, you might be shocked at how many other agencies out there are like that.

Show me where you influence the Federal Reserve ?

Show me where I influence any government agency.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

A couple of things...

1- Somewhere out there Kal Stang has left a bitch with a stinging cheek from the back of his hand.
2- Color me STUNNED when the only voice of consistent reason in...what...293 posts is Bubba??? It takes some stones for a very liberal person to take the position that...well...yeah...if it was wrong when bush did it it is wrong when Obama does it.
3- For those playing the "well...it was RIGHT when Bush did it"...shut up...you reap what you sow. And for those liberals that were losing your ****ing minds when Bush did it (dont lie...you know you were) just remember...the worm always turns...and someday...when it is a GOP president doing it...go look in a mirror and punch yourself right in the nose. Hard.

The appointment makes very little difference to me. Our country is 15.5 trillion in debt and the pres is about to jack that up another trillion...which means we blew through that last debt ceiling in what...4 months? The 'supercommittee of democrats and republicans couldnt agree on even the smallest reduction in DEFICIT spending over 10 years for gods sake. But seriously...you cant condone the use of force when it is Bush and then decry it when it is Obama and you cant bitch about abuse of presidential powers when it is Bush and then dance a celebratory jig when Obama does it. Wait...scratch that. You CAN...you just like like a total dumbass.

Nero...please continue...your music pleases us...
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Parliamentary tricks aren't against the law.

exactly. what the GOP was doing in the Senate was perfectly legal.

as was Obama's move.

however, I would argue that the proper and responsible way to express displeasure with a new agency, is try to muster the votes to either kill the agency or defund it.

if you can't get enough votes to do that...then you should work towards that goal and not try to use parliamentary tricks to get your way.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

:)


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.

Ah, thanks. Interesting.

ps - tell me about D'Amato and they typewriters! I don't know that story .... :)

That was the last real filibuster, it seems.

Second-longest solo filibuster in Senate history staged Oct. 5, 1992 - Andrew Glass - POLITICO.com
On this day in 1992, Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) staged the second-longest solo filibuster in Senate history. D’Amato’s dusk-to-dawn talkathon was the first such nonstop event since the Senate inaugurated gavel-to-gavel televised coverage of its floor proceedings in 1986.

The issue involved plans by Smith Corona, a typewriter maker, to move some 875 jobs from its upstate New York factory to Mexico to lower its wage base and help it compete against the lower-priced Japanese imports that had entered the market.

Among other digressions in the course of his filibuster, which lasted 15 hours and 14 minutes, D’Amato sang “South of the Border (Down Mexico Way).” Had D’Amato spoken for another 17 minutes, he would have broken the record Sen. Huey Long (D-La.) set in 1935 when he conducted one of the most notable filibusters in Senate history — an effort that included his recipes for fried oysters and turnip-green pot liquor.

So as not to interrupt other Senate business — a consideration that rarely arose in the filibusters of the pre-TV era — D’Amato began speaking around dinnertime and continued into the following morning. His ostensible object was to amend a pending $27 tax bill to lower the company’s incentive to move. He abandoned his quest after the House adjourned for the year, thereby dooming any chances that his amendment would be included in the final legislation.
 
Back
Top Bottom