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

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Misterveritis said:

I prefer the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama.

I think he would be more comfortable with the title of Emperor and Dictator for life.

But I could be mistaken.

Click to expand...

This statement is the ultimate irony. Let me tell you why:

1) The father of Neoconservatism was Irving Kristol, who WAS a REAL card carrying member of the Communist Party when he attended college in New York.

2) The other lynchpin of Neoconservatism was Leo Strauss, the professor at the University of Chicago, who taught and advocated a policy called Noble Lies, in which, to get a population to go along with you, you had to tell them lies, which would supposedly be for their own good. Invented by Plato, Noble Lies was used by Machiavelli, and also..... get ready for it...... Karl Marx.

3) President Bush had a LOT of Neoconservatives in his administration.

4) I never once saw you call Bush a Marxist..... EVER!

I had my own word for the Neocons, though. I called them Bushneviks. LOL.

:mrgreen:

A lot of us have, and it's clear that the President's action is in response to the Republicans playing games with the meaning of session in order to game the system and get another bite at the Consumer Protection Agency. This, by the way, is a new tactic. This is the first time the GOP house has pulled it.

The GOP lost the legislative battle to emasculate the Consumer Protection agency two years ago. In the interim, they've made no secret of their intention to hold the director's nomination hostage to renegotiating the deal on their terms. They started with an ugly series of attacks on Elizebeth Warren. The got her off the short list, and probably cost them a seat in the Senate for their efforts. Now, they're playing the same game with Cordorey.

The GOP will have to go to court to prevent the President for exercising this appointment. Will the conservative court, side with the GOP and enjoin the appointment, or reverse it?

That remains to be seen.

But, constitutional issues aside, politically, that battle will make the GOP look bad. Most people want a consumer protection agency. They're tired of "tricks and traps", as Ms Warren says. And a battle against an agency that wants to do something about them is not a great battle to fight in an election year, particularly if the Adminstration drags the proceedings out through the season.

Face it, the GOP just fell into its own trap again!

Weather the GOP can continue to get away with it depends on how (or whether) the courts decide. In any case, the case won't be heard u

teamosil said:

If Boehner or somebody wants to take it to court they're free to, but I can tell you right now, the court will say it's ok. The clear purpose of the recess appointments clause it to enable the president to ensure that vacancies in key positions get filled promptly to avoid disrupting the government's ability to function. That is exactly what it is being used for and the courts won't let some technicality the legislature cooked up trump the clear intention of the constitution. The advice and consent requirement is there to make sure that the legislature gets input into the process, not as a level they can use to try to disable the federal government.

Click to expand...

Just remember that you said this when there is a republican president and the democrats are playing politics also.

Kal'Stang said:

Just remember that you said this when there is a republican president and the democrats are playing politics also.

Click to expand...

I supported Bush when he made John Bolton a recess appointment the exact same way. :wink:

Kal'Stang said:

Just remember that you said this when there is a republican president and the democrats are playing politics also.

Click to expand...

The court would certainly decide it the same way if the parties were reversed. The court is majority conservative, but on this kind of thing they've been pretty consistent for a long time.

Personally, my feeling is that the whole process should be structured differently. There are some positions that are purely executive department positions. IMO those should not even require advice and consent from Congress. The president is in charge of the executive branch and shouldn't be hamstrung in running his own branch by Congress. If it were up to me, we'd pass a constitutional amendment removing the advice and consent requirements for any post inside the executive branch. But, then there are posts outside of it. For example, independent agencies like the FCC or the FEC, and judges. I would retain the advice and consent requirement those and force Congress to get more involved. The people in those posts outlast one presidential administration and IMO they should reflect a more balanced point of view. But, those posts need to be able to be filled much more quickly than they are. I think for those I would put a clock on the advice and consent saying that if they do not reject the nominee within 30 days, they are automatically confirmed.

danarhea said:

I supported Bush when he made John Bolton a recess appointment the exact same way. :wink:

Click to expand...

Oh god. That guy was such a dick. I had forgotten all about him...

Eighty Deuce said:

Spare me your being ignorant as to process. Bolton was not appointed in contradiction to standard recess protocols.

Click to expand...

Hardly ignorant to what is going on here. Spare us your contrived outrage. You are upset about the form of this, but substantively the Senate is in recess. The Senate is also deliberately obstructing here. If the Senate can play games and refuse the do the people's business, then the executive has greater lattitude to do the people's business.

It would have better for all of us had the Senate just done their job and moved this to a straight up/down vote.

danarhea said:

I supported Bush when he made John Bolton a recess appointment the exact same way. :wink:

Click to expand...

Uhhhhh .... Bolton was appointed when the Senate was in true recess. :roll:

A few questions for all of you whining about the Republicans gaming the rules...why didnt Harry Reid bang the gavel and present the topic of the appointee for debate? You dont need cloture to debate a topic, only to close it. If this guy wasnt going to pass Senate approval, why didnt Obama present someone else? Yes the I agree the President can nominate anyone he wants, but if he knows the person in question isnt going pass, hes wasting his time and the Senate's.

So...why not?

Something else I dont understand, for some 18months, treasury had tons of openings, but no takers. How is this appointment suddenly so important that Obama couldnt at least TRY the nomination process before going all out?

Re-election...thats why.

AdamT said:

In my opinion the rules of the game should be followed. But Republicans were not following the rules. They have been abusing the ever living **** out of the filibuster rule for five years, and in this case they completely abused the advice and consent rule by admittedly using it to try to force a change in existing law, as opposed to the legitimate purpose of vetting the candidate. So when you throw out the rule book, don't whine like a ****in baby when your opponent doesn't follow the rules either. Clear enough?

Click to expand...

And?

What is wrong with holding up a process where a law is flawed and trying to correct its flaws before enacting said law? Do you go through and enact a law and create a new governmental department with flaws and no regulations or clear definition of what that department is supposed to do or do you outline the functions of that department and give it a clearly defined reason for being?

You dont just create a new government entity with unknown power that is answerable to no one.

And do two wrongs make a right? Just because Republicans have used the filibuster to the extreme does abuse of power and ignoring law become acceptable?

AdamT said:

I agree. Unfortunately Republicans started jacking with the rules 2006 and they haven't stopped yet. If they had real questions about Obama's appointment I would be the first to cry foul. They should have the right to question him. But, again, they don't have a problem with the nominee. They have a problem with the law that was passed and they were trying to circumvent the advice and consent process to get a second bite at that apple. It's like trying to rob a store and complaining when the owner shoots you with an unregistered handgun. I can't get too worked up about the handgun.

Click to expand...

So two wrongs make a right? Actually 3 wrongs in this case.

The Repubs are doing the exact same thing the Democrats did in early 2000's.

The Dems wouldnt even bring up for vote several appointees from the Bush administration, the Repubs are returning the favor....(wrong IMO)...but because the Repubs are doing exactly what the Dems did, NOW you are calling foul and saying the President doesnt have to follow the rules or the law?

I love it when one side thinks the rules dont apply to them.

teamosil said:

If Boehner or somebody wants to take it to court they're free to, but I can tell you right now, the court will say it's ok. The clear purpose of the recess appointments clause it to enable the president to ensure that vacancies in key positions get filled promptly to avoid disrupting the government's ability to function. That is exactly what it is being used for and the courts won't let some technicality the legislature cooked up trump the clear intention of the constitution. The advice and consent requirement is there to make sure that the legislature gets input into the process, not as a level they can use to try to disable the federal government.

Click to expand...

Obama can appoint him to the new agency all he wants, that doesnt change the fact that the law that created the agency specifies that before said agency can function, Congressional Concent of the nominee must take place.

So as it sits right now, we have an appointee with no department to head and no salary to collect.

upsideguy said:

Hardly ignorant to what is going on here. Spare us your contrived outrage. You are upset about the form of this, but substantively the Senate is in recess.

Click to expand...

Are you freakin' kidding me here? substantively? kind of? for the most part?

In the United States federal government, either house of the United States Congress (the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted.[4] This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."[5] Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.[6] They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments.

Pro forma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush
By Peter Schroeder - 01/04/12 12:13 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who previously held pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush, said Wednesday he supported President Obama's decision to ignore those sessions to push through one of his key nominees.

"I support President Obama's decision," he said in a statement.

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama planned to recess appoint Richard Cordray to be director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). However, Republicans immediately cried foul about the move. They argue that because the holiday break has been broken up by brief pro forma sessions, the Senate is not in recess and the appointment is illegitimate.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the novel move "arrogantly circumvented the American people."

However, the White House maintains that those sessions, typically held every three days and lasting a few seconds, are not legitimate and can be ignored for the purpose of making recess appointments. The administration cited lawyers that advised President George W. Bush when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

On the other side of the argument at that time was Reid, who began holding pro forma sessions in 2007 to block Bush nominees.

"I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made," he said on the Senate floor in 2008, as Democrats blocked a potential recess appointment of Steven Bradbury to be the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration. Bradbury is one of the attorneys cited by the Obama White House in justifying the Cordray move.

Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush - The Hill's On The Money

Click to expand...

The Hill, no friend of republicans, even in this article highlights the hypocritical nature of demo's in this.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nevada) used the same maneuver in 2008 to prevent then-President George W. Bush from pushing through recess appointments at times when Congress was out of town. Bush did not challenge it, even though some former Bush officials have come forward this week to say presidents do have the Constitutional power to do recess appointments even when there's a pro forma session.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday called the use of pro forma sessions a "gimmick," even though Reid used them a short time ago.

"We're saying that this is a gimmick versus a Constitutionally-enshrined authority," said Carney. "And we feel very comfortable, as a legal matter, that the Constitution trumps gimmicks."

Read more: A Tale Of Two President Obamas | Fox News

Click to expand...

What a joke Carney is...The Constitution trumps gimmicks....They are absolutely ignoring the Constitution in doing this, and thus breaking the law! Obama took an oath, that he obviously doesn't intend on, nor ever intended on upholding.


He should be impeached, and thrown out on his ear.


j-mac

j-mac said:

Are you freakin' kidding me here? substantively? kind of? for the most part?





The Hill, no friend of republicans, even in this article highlights the hypocritical nature of demo's in this.



What a joke Carney is...The Constitution trumps gimmicks....They are absolutely ignoring the Constitution in doing this, and thus breaking the law! Obama took an oath, that he obviously doesn't intend on, nor ever intended on upholding.


He should be impeached, and thrown out on his ear.


j-mac

Click to expand...

with those ears that would be quite a soft landing

let's watch the Obama administration argue they made those "recess" appointments to uphold the intent of the Constitutional language and ignored the gamesmanship (contrived originally by DEMO senate leader reid) played to pretend there was no actual "recess", intended only to thwart the provisions of the Constitution
it is quite obvious the republicans were taking actions contrary to their obligation to 'advise and consent'

OpportunityCost said:

A few questions for all of you whining about the Republicans gaming the rules...why didnt Harry Reid bang the gavel and present the topic of the appointee for debate? You dont need cloture to debate a topic, only to close it.

Click to expand...

Republicans filibustered the appointment.

If this guy wasnt going to pass Senate approval, why didnt Obama present someone else? Yes the I agree the President can nominate anyone he wants, but if he knows the person in question isnt going pass, hes wasting his time and the Senate's.

Click to expand...

I guess you haven't been following the thread. Republicans said that they did not object to Cordray. What they objected to was the structure of the agency that was already lawfully created. That is the whole point. The purpose of the advice and consent procedure is to allow Congress to pass judgment on a nominee. The purpose is NOT to allow Congress to make substantive changes to the AGENCY to which the nominee has been appointed.

Something else I dont understand, for some 18months, treasury had tons of openings, but no takers. How is this appointment suddenly so important that Obama couldnt at least TRY the nomination process before going all out?

Click to expand...

Republicans have been holding up many nominations -- not just this one. In this case, however, because it was a new agency, it was paramount that there be someone in charge during its formative period. Folks seem to have missed the fact that Obama also recess appointed three members of the NLRB, which was necessary because the board was about to lose its ability to function for lack of a quorum.

Re-election...thats why.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why Republicans blocked a nominee who they said they liked.

justabubba said:

.................. it is quite obvious the republicans were taking actions contrary to their obligation to 'advise and consent'

Click to expand...

Recess Appointments, when done to deny the ability of the Senate to Advise and Consent, are gimmicks already for chrissakes. :roll:

It is Obama who avoided negotiating with the Senate.

Imnukingfutz said:

So two wrongs make a right? Actually 3 wrongs in this case.

The Repubs are doing the exact same thing the Democrats did in early 2000's.

The Dems wouldnt even bring up for vote several appointees from the Bush administration, the Repubs are returning the favor....(wrong IMO)...but because the Repubs are doing exactly what the Dems did, NOW you are calling foul and saying the President doesnt have to follow the rules or the law?

I love it when one side thinks the rules dont apply to them.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Dems did the same sort of thing under Bush, but the Republicans, as per usual, have taken it to a new level. In fact Bush should have done in '08 what Obama did yesterday. The fact that he didn't has caused major problems with over 500 NLRB decisions having been declared invalid because they were made when the board had too few members to form a quorum.

justabubba said:

with those ears that would be quite a soft landing

let's watch the Obama administration argue they made those "recess" appointments to uphold the intent of the Constitutional language and ignored the gamesmanship (contrived originally by DEMO senate leader reid) played to pretend there was no actual "recess", intended only to thwart the provisions of the Constitution
it is quite obvious the republicans were taking actions contrary to their obligation to 'advise and consent'

Click to expand...

The Republican's were doing nothing different than what demo's did during the Bush administration. And it was not Republicans that shredded the Constitution in this case.

Obama may have had his own reasons for wanting to do what he did, but we don't have a dictatorship, or even a Monarchy. There are rules, and that is the Constitution, Obama just threw that out the window.

j-mac

j-mac said:

The Republican's were doing nothing different than what demo's did during the Bush administration. And it was not Republicans that shredded the Constitution in this case.

Obama may have had his own reasons for wanting to do what he did, but we don't have a dictatorship, or even a Monarchy. There are rules, and that is the Constitution, Obama just threw that out the window.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Congress was in recess. The pro forma session was a sham and everyone knew it.

AdamT said:

Congress was not in recess. That was a sham and everyone knew it.

Click to expand...

You misspoke. In any case, Recess Appointments are a sham, and have been for years, as they are now done not because Congress is gone for 4 months or more at a time, and in many cases once being a 30 day horse ride from a distant district. They are done now to avoid the Senate. The Senate retained one rule to compel negotiation.

Obama trashed the Constitution ........... again.

AdamT said:

Obama’s justifiable ‘power grab’ on recess appointments - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

Well, I am absolutely shocked that the Washington Post Editorial Board is defending Obama, and pushing his agenda openly...:shock::doh

Or that they use Republican progressives from the Bush administration to in a weak assed attempt to justify their UNConstitutional move.

Bradbury and Elwood can, and did that during Bush, but Bush decided to uphold his oath and preserve the Constitution and NOT do it.

This really shows what libs think of our Constitution.


j-mac

AdamT said:

Congress was in recess. The pro forma session was a sham and everyone knew it.

Click to expand...

From senate.gov

pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.


Which, based on their own definition, is required since they aren't on formal recess.

Hell, its a published schedule for every three days.( again, senate.gov ).

FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012

The Senate will convene at 11:00 AM and will conduct a Pro Forma Session.

The Senate will then conduct Pro Forma Sessions on the following dates:
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM.
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2:00 PM.

The Senate will next convene for business on Monday, January 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM. There will be in a period of Morning Business for two hours. At 4:00 PM, the Senate will proceed to an Executive Session to consider the nomination of Cal. #438 (John Gerrard to United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska). There will 90 minutes of debate on the nomination followed by a vote on confirmation at 5:30 PM. On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM, the Senate will have a cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed to S. 968 ( Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011).

Samhain said:

From senate.gov

pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.


Which, based on their own definition, is required since they aren't on formal recess.

Hell, its a published schedule for every three days.( again, senate.gov ).

FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012

The Senate will convene at 11:00 AM and will conduct a Pro Forma Session.

The Senate will then conduct Pro Forma Sessions on the following dates:
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM.
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2:00 PM.

The Senate will next convene for business on Monday, January 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM. There will be in a period of Morning Business for two hours. At 4:00 PM, the Senate will proceed to an Executive Session to consider the nomination of Cal. #438 (John Gerrard to United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska). There will 90 minutes of debate on the nomination followed by a vote on confirmation at 5:30 PM. On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM, the Senate will have a cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed to S. 968 ( Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011).

Click to expand...

As I said -- it's a sham. One member is present. No business is being done, or can be done.

Eighty Deuce said:

You misspoke. In any case, Recess Appointments are a sham, and have been for years, as they are now done not because Congress is gone for 4 months or more at a time, and in many cases once being a 30 day horse ride from a distant district. They are done now to avoid the Senate. The Senate retained one rule to compel negotiation.

Obama trashed the Constitution ........... again.

Click to expand...

and the Republicans are abusing their power & playing games with the Senate.