Post #352,727
1/4/12 4:28:53 PM
|
Obama making multiple recess appointments
http://www.huffingto...ns_n_1184285.html
Doubling down on President Barack Obama's bold recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the White House announced Wednesday that Obama would also use his recess powers to fill three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with enforcing labor law.
That would make 4 recess appointments, all moves designed to bolster is middle class and union support. Very aggressive for Obama, it looks like he is beginning to get into campaign mode himself.
The NLRB stuff is very big, the Republicans have been trying to shut down the NLRB through the back door by refusing to vote on anybody. Without enough people on the board, the NLRB can't form a quorum, effectively blocking them from doing anything.
Jay
|
Post #352,733
1/4/12 9:45:23 PM
|
More.
http://www.whitehous...consumer-watchdog
Here are the facts: The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called Âpro forma sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the PresidentÂs constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham Âpro forma sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.
Excellent.
http://motherjones.c...cess-appointments
According to reports from the Congressional Research Service, during their time in office President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 140 recess appointments, and George W. Bush made 171. Obama's first term has seen a paltry 28.
It's the end of the Republic!!!111
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #352,734
1/4/12 10:06:13 PM
|
Further...
I saw something on my Twitter feed (I think from @dangillmor) about how Obama making the appointment of Cordray today instead of yesterday somehow means that the appointment will be effective through the end of 2013, and not the end of 2012. I didn't have time to read the linked article, but it's an interesting point, if true.
-Mike
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
|
Post #352,740
1/4/12 11:13:47 PM
|
Yup.
http://www.nytimes.c...-appointment.html
There had been debate over whether Mr. Obama could have avoided a constitutional challenge by making the appointment on Tuesday in the short window between the end of the first and beginning of the second session of the 112th Congress. By moving ahead after the new session started, the president may have provided Republicans a chance to argue that, technically, the recess appointment was invalid.
Recess appointments end when the next Senate session ends - so they last at most 2 years. http://en.wikipedia....cess_appointments
He seems to have played this very, very well.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #352,758
1/5/12 9:42:07 AM
|
excellent! thread bookmarked
for when the next repo does exactly the same thing in the same way and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth appears
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #352,776
1/5/12 6:48:16 PM
|
I'm sure the circumstances will be identical. Truly.
|
Post #352,793
1/5/12 11:07:32 PM
|
driftglass's take.
http://driftglass.bl...-equivalence.html
Yup, as the first comment says, it's amazing. Right Box?
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #352,797
1/6/12 7:29:06 AM
1/6/12 7:30:29 AM
|
Perfect
http://driftglass.bl...-equivalence.html
Especially since I've been hiding my Tau Ceti roots.
And I've worked with people like that. As long as their brother is the boss's boss, and they smoke dope with the owners, they always get patted on the head after their bouts of destruction.
Edited by crazy
Jan. 6, 2012, 07:30:29 AM EST
|
Post #352,806
1/6/12 9:44:35 AM
|
Tower Bork Thomas then the demos started whining
You remember Graham and others when he joined with democrats to stop the nuklear option from being used? Yup crazed khuboys alright. I wonder they let you drive with that 2x4 hanging out of your eyeball
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #352,807
1/6/12 10:24:40 AM
|
Yeah. It's exactly the same.
Refusing to have a vote on someone to a relatively minor executive branch position that nearly everyone recognizes is qualified, has the widespread support of colleagues from both parties around the country, etc., and using the refusal to seat someone to a legally created position in a legally created board in an attempt to prevent the board from operating.
vs.
Contentious arguments and votes for someone to fill a lifetime appointment on the courts who has reactionary views, is divisive, wants to undo established law and precedent that goes back decades, etc. Or arguments and votes for someone to fill a cabinet-level appointment (someone in line for the presidency) who has alcohol and womanizing problems (which opens them up to attempted blackmail in an extremely sensitive position), etc.
Tower was voted down (53:47) by his former colleagues in the Senate. He had a vote. Bork was voted down as well. Thomas got a vote and won.
The nuclear option was about judicial filibusters/cloture votes.
Yeah, it's exactly the same. Of course.
Not.
I'm having trouble seeing how Cordray's recess appointment is similar to the things you've brought up. Help me out.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #352,809
1/6/12 10:29:14 AM
|
take the beam out, you will see better
<I'm having trouble seeing how Cordray's recess appointment> no problem, when the next republican president appoints someone in the same manner I shall expect your support of that action.
"well I wont hold my breath too long"
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #352,812
1/6/12 10:59:07 AM
|
Lather, rinse, repeat
Box rarely sticks with a coherent example (quickly discarded or simply ignored when analysis shows huge difference), prefers to speak boxlish and wave hands.
Sorry box.
You know it.
|
Post #352,836
1/6/12 3:23:08 PM
|
Re: More.
http://dailycaller.c...use-nominee-list/
ÂItÂs hard to argue that the Senate was obstructing these Democratic nominees when they donÂt even appear on the administrationÂs own list of nominations and appointments, U.S. Chamber of Commerce labor policy specialist Glenn Spencer told The Daily Caller. hard to do the advise and consent without the names init?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #352,838
1/6/12 3:35:10 PM
|
Daily Caller? Really?
I'm not clicking that. Sorry. Why? E.g. http://crooksandliar...wis-publishes-eas
Chamber of Commerce is upset? Really?
http://www.bloomberg...ations-board.html
Film at 11:00.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #352,839
1/6/12 3:59:47 PM
|
hows about pointing them out here?
http://www.whitehous...-and-appointments
and explain why advise and consent was not needed for these appointments but that the republicans should never be allowed to do the same
beam/eye
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #352,840
1/6/12 4:21:52 PM
|
You're arguing with things I haven't said.
Hint: Never is a very strong word.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #352,849
1/6/12 7:27:16 PM
|
Okay, I will wait
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #352,850
1/6/12 7:52:00 PM
|
:-)
|
Post #352,736
1/4/12 10:20:35 PM
|
Pierce is *on fire!*
Boy-howdy: [McConnell] goes on:
The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions.
Pardon me a third time, but exactly which of my individual consumer decisions will this new agency exercise its "unprecedented reach and control"? My individual consumer decision not to get cheated by a mega-bank? My individual consumer decision not to get gouged by some beancounter in South Dakota because my payment's one day late? It's not like Richard Corddray is going to be leaping out from behind the sweater vests at Old Navy and hurling himself atop the cashier's desk, forbidding me to buy that new pair of khakis. This agency, as I understand it, is on my side against the forces that looted most of the economy and wrecked the rest. You know what, Mitch? I'll chance it. Truly, I will. I like to live dangerously.
And if you really want to go to court to protect the rights of the banks to bleed the rest of us to death, have at it. The commercials write themselves. Read the whole thing:
http://www.esquire.c...-congress-6632899
cordially,
|
Post #352,742
1/4/12 11:22:30 PM
|
Excellent coda to this week+ of baa-baa banal bleatings..
And as he opines:
Obama *must* now recognize a cast-die as a. cast. die.--and become/remain Unrelenting.
I second someone's ~~ ..jeez after 3 years, Finally! sentiments.
Sic! 'em..
|
Post #353,109
1/12/12 10:48:39 PM
|
The OLC memo.
http://s3.documentcl...nts-office-of.pdf (23 page .pdf)
[...]
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
On December 17, 2011, the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to Âadjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business conducted, every Tuesday and Friday between that date and January 23, 2012. 157 Cong. Rec. S8783 (daily ed. Dec. 17, 2011). During that period, on January 3, 2012, the Senate convened one such pro forma session to begin the second session of the 112th Congress and adjourned less than a minute later under its prior agreement. 158 Cong. Rec. S1 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2012); see also U.S. Const. amend. XX, § 2. You asked whether the President has authority under the Recess Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 3, to make recess appointments during the period between January 3 and January 23 notwithstanding the convening of periodic pro forma sessions. We advised you that he does. This opinion memorializes and elaborates on that advice.
[...]
Looks air-tight to me. Of course, that won't prevent someone from filing a lawsuit.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #353,128
1/13/12 6:00:32 PM
|
may well be airtight
but custom dictated that shrub acknowledge that tactic while he was in office. The next repo will use this precedent to tell the senate to ftfo. I expect you to support that repo president's decision.(not)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|