E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“President Obama touched off a fierce election-year confrontation with Congressional Republicans on Wednesday, defying their deep opposition to appoint Richard Cordray as director of a new consumer protection agency and fill three labor board vacancies,” the New York Times writes. “The decision to install the four nominees without Senate approval under the constitutional provision for making appointments when lawmakers are in recess was a provocative opening salvo in Mr. Obama’s re-election strategy of demonizing Congress. It threatened to ignite a legal challenge and left Republicans fuming that the president was abusing the recess privilege.”
“President Barack Obama signaled readiness for a brawling election campaign by bypassing the U.S. Senate on high-profile appointments after disappointing supporters for not taking a stronger stance against Republicans,” Bloomberg notes. “The president’s defiance of congressional Republicans in naming a consumer financial watchdog and three National Labor Relations Board members without Senate consent may harm the chances of other nominees requiring confirmation for the rest of his term and also end in court. Yet Obama’s decision to make the appointments during a brief Senate recess helps frame his election-year gambit of running against a gridlocked Congress.”
“President Barack Obama is putting his personal stamp on a rejiggered Pentagon strategy for absorbing hundreds of billions of dollars in defense budget cuts, marking a turning point in U.S. security policy after a decade of war,” AP writes. “Obama planned to make a rare appearance in the Pentagon press briefing room Thursday to announce results of a strategy review that he ordered last spring. The aim was twofold: Streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes. Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings.”
Leave a Comment:
Aw, the poor wittle Wepubwicans are all mad now.
I believe Richard Cheney said it best...
"SO?"
Children will be children.....
When President Obama makes recess appointments it is really bad, but when all the other presidents do it it is ok! Give me a break! Good for President Obama. He is finally standing up for americans.
Congress is not out of session! it's against the constitution! what don't you get?
oh you like socialist dictator Obombo! i get it. this is what people hate about liberals!
Obombo has no respect for this country. none!
If Congress is in session, then why are all of the senators and representatives at home? Why are the cameras dark on CSpan? If that is what is passing for "in session", then there's a problem. (and yes, I understand about the 3 day ruling). We all know a gimmick when we see it, though.
How many of us can go into work for 5 minutes, every 3rd day, and still get counted as being at work?
What we have here are two competing constitutional matters: the Senate's right to confirm appointees to government departments and bureaus, and Congress's right to see the legislation it passes enacted. It seems to me that legislation that has already passed (Consumer Protection Bureau) trumps technical definitions concerning 'recess' and being 'in session'.
It will be a very interesting case when it goes to the Supreme Court, as it must eventually do.
Lets see. Now recess appointments did jr.bush make? Doesn't a loudmouth pushy s.o.b. by the bolton sound familiar? Well what's the difference?
Actually it won't, the constitution give the president this right. there is nothing congress can do about it.
It can be challenged two ways...
1. To avoid a formal recess (which must be approved by the House for a recess of more than 3 days), the Senate is holding "pro forma" sessions every 3 days. The Senate Republicans can claim that they are still in session so a recess appointment is illegal.
2. The letter of the law of Dodd-Frank is that the powers of the director of CFPB only take effect when the director "is confirmed by the Senate". There may be challenges made to any of the actions taken by Cordray.
The tea people GOP republican congress won't challenge the recess appointments, it would be political suicide to side ounce again with big money wall street and big corporations.
BTW: When the appointment was voted on in the senate, it was a 53 to 47 vote to confirm the appointment. A clear majority. It was the tea people GOP republicans that filibustered the appointment so they would have to have 60 votes to confirm.
Noid,
They might just get away with #1 Although I do think Dodd-Frank is a stretch
Will probably wind up in court anyway..
Da Noid.
1. The three day thing is the result of an implied precedent from the Justice Department in 1993. The congress was effectively in recess.
2. This recess appointment is no different then any other recess appointment. Recess appointments made hold the same legal standing as those made in recess. So, legally, the director was essentially confirmed by the Senate.
SO what - how many other appointments are being held up by the GNOP? The always cry and yell there should be a simple yes or no vote...and yet now, as they have stated from day 1, they still say are for delay and seeing Pres. Obama fail......here they are...proud to be Americans...but yet are hell bent on seeing America fail...
Paul,
I agree.
The GOP/TP main goal is to stop the President at every turn, not with up and down votes but obstructing the everyday function of government. The Consumer Protection Agency, the National Relation Board are just an example of two agencies that need appointments to conduct business.
The Times is wrong in its characterization. Repubilcans launched the "opening salvo" for the election right after the President's inaugaration when they loudly and proudly announced that their objective was to make him a one-term president. And they've done nothing to move this country in a positive direction since. All they've done is create false crises, repeat inane talking points, and offer no new ideas or effective legislation to address any of our problems. It's about time the President stopped playing their idiotic game. Let them howl from the rafters and whine on Fox. At least now they'll have something to cry about.
Keep up the good fight President Obama! It is up to us as true Americans to help reelect him to office. We must also get out and vote the Tea-baggers out!!!
Obama 2012
Good for you, Mr. President.
President Romney can dissolve this un-needed agency, along with a few others, starting next January. So Odumbo can appoint whoever he wants. Ain't gonna fly.
Obama shelved in 2012.
B.S. Joe...
but stay in your delusional world of alternate reality. Truth is there is NOT and never will be a "President Romney" in the United States - just a fact. Voters are on to and fed up with the teapublican political fiasco which has crippled and harmed this great nation, and the majority SUPPORTS PRESIDENT OBAMA:
e.g.:
Idiocy at work. Also, did you catch Cantor dancing on the head of a pin on 60 Minutes last weekend?
Face it: American citizens are through with the "1%ers" -
Change is happening, which gives the USA HOPE (just as the President stated would happen in 2008)
Citizens are re-claiming America for the people
OWS is here to stay until the changes are effected, so deal with it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2012!!!!
not as stupid? well i think your statement says thats not true!
Of course you do ervin.
Really bothers you when voters don't just roll over and accept what you spout, doesn't it?
Too bad... majority of 11/12 voters know that the President is correct and you gop/tea party RWNJ's HURT AMERICA in the poor name of your ideology/caste system. Your reluctance to protect consumers is just plain WRONG, and we are not going to allow you to continue taking unfair advantages for the sake of another dollar in YOUR pocket.
Get over it and deal.... Like Bob Dylan told us years ago, "The times they are a-changing" whether YOU like it or not!
Sigh. My 14-year-old was two, once. Like Republicans, she found it inconconceivable that she could not always have her way. When tears, and tantrums, got her what she wanted, once or twice, she employed that tactic until we introduced the "time-out". Perhaps a chair facing the corner for Sen. McConnell and his peers would do some good.
republicans cry when they can't have their way? you are in lalaliberaland!
the demos and liberals are the biggest cry babies!
Ervin - so this is your level of participation in public discourse? What a waste of bits and bytes; what a disappointing conversationalist you've proven to be.
OBOMBO is a socialist anti-american dictator!!!!
Ervin - what I said, in 9.2, continues to apply. You aren't improving, and your comments are annoying at best.
Try looking up the definition of "socialist".
I question your sanity if you don't recognize what's going on here. If you deny that ignoring the seperation of powers is another step towards tyranny then you are all blind lemmings. The end of this presidency cannot come soon enough.
It is the House that is stepping on the separation of powers on this one. It is a constitutionally-given right of the President to make recess appointments.
I would respect the TP group more if they would consistently respect the Constitution...and not just when it fits their ideology. They seem to hide behind the flag and imply "we are more patriotic than you are".
I say, "from many, one". We are all Americans and we may have different views, but the Constitution is not for tug of war games.
I think it's a good thing that this be brought before the SCOTUS. Just like Mr Smith Goes to Washington, it ought to require some effort to stop the wheels of govt from turning. The simple gesture of declaring a filibuster without having to hold the floor for the duration, or calling a meeting to order with one other person present in order to avoid a recess being a recess, makes a sham of our system of governance. It ought to require effort by the congresscritter(s) instead of the simple expediency of a procedural trick that takes the 'skin' out of the game.
If it required - oh, let's say 10% of the Senate (or 10 Senators) - to meet every 3 days for a minimum of 2 hours, do you think the recess would've happened?
If it required congresscritter(s) to constantly orate to hold the floor and deny a vote (filibuster), how many filibusters would we have had and how long would they have lasted?
I question your sanity if you think these procedural tricks are doing us any good.