President to use recess appointment for CFPB :-)

[occupied]

You guys think this is bad there are more recess appointments in the pipeline, The NLRB has three vacant seats that will soon be filled in spite of their partisan obstruction. Don't like it? Tell your congressman to make a BIG deal about it when congress comes back. Tell them to make numerous floor speeches to make the case exactly why these appointments have been held up because up until now they have not had much to say other than Obama is a socialist and such.

 

[midcan5]

I'm hoping Obama starts telling the republicans where to go.... Our greatest president told them where to go....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/180822-i-welcome-their-hatred-fdr.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

 

[Stephanie]

I'm hoping Obama starts telling the republicans where to go.... Our greatest president told them where to go....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/180822-i-welcome-their-hatred-fdr.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

I hope he does too. that should sit well with the millions of people who ARE REPUBLICANS..

go ahead dear Obama..do as your rabid dogs base wants

 

[Mustang]

The term RECESS appointment does kind of suggest that it may be resorted to during an actual RECESS.

Is that overly technical for you Obamabots?

According to the Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution:

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
​

That's the reason the pro forma session came into being.

I think every honest person understands that in recent years, rules and procedures have been adopted in a way in which they were never intended to work. (The misuse of the filibuster comes to mind).

The pro forma US Senate session where no business is either planned or conducted has only come into use in recent years (under the Democrats, I'm sorry to say) as a way of preventing a presidents from exercising their constitutional power under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution which states:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.​

Again, and in more direct and simple terms, you can call it "pro forma" all you like, but the Senate is simply NOT in recess.

What are they doing then? Playing a game of whist?

 

[Mustang]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans don't make a big deal of this much beyond Mitch McConnell's hissyfit. Can't imagine they'd wanna have to actually justify why they've been blocking this guy to begin with.

I wouldn't bet on that since it's clear that the Republicans have an almost irrational desire to want to block as much of Obama's agenda as they can. Additionally, it doesn't seem to matter to them what it is that they block. If Obama is for it, they want to block it, even if they were once advocates for the same idea. What's more, it doesn't appear that they much care how they manage to make that happen. So, if President Obama actually has the temerity to do an end run around them (especially if it's successful), it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't relish a constitutional show down.

After all, don't you remember what happened when Obama wanted the debt ceiling raised just like several presidents before him. Republicans showed frightening willingness to play 'chicken' with the US credit rating.

 

[Dot Com]

Bottom Line - Obama defies GOP by naming new consumer watchdog

The announcement drew immediate fire from Republicans who have blocked Cordray's appointment since it was announced in July.

July?!!! Bejeezus

 

[Stephanie]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans don't make a big deal of this much beyond Mitch McConnell's hissyfit. Can't imagine they'd wanna have to actually justify why they've been blocking this guy to begin with.

I wouldn't bet on that since it's clear that the Republicans have an almost irrational desire to want to block as much of Obama's agenda as they can. Additionally, it doesn't seem to matter to them what it is that they block. If Obama is for it, they want to block it, even if they were once advocates for the same idea. What's more, it doesn't appear that they much care how they manage to make that happen. So, if President Obama actually has the temerity to do an end run around them (especially if it's successful), it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't relish a constitutional show down.

After all, don't you remember what happened when Obama wanted the debt ceiling raised just like several presidents before him. Republicans showed frightening willingness to play 'chicken' with the US credit rating.

after all:
snip:
All Democrat Senators Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling
Posted by John Hitchcock on 17 July 2011, 2:54 am
0diggsdiggThe year was 2006. The President was George W Bush. The debt ceiling was being approached. And every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling.



Let’s see.
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Harry Reid
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumer
And the rest of the Democrats

I guess they all wanted the US to default on its debt. I guess they all wanted senior citizens to lose their Social Security checks. I guess they all wanted Medicare and Medicaid recipients to lose their healthcare.


from..
All Democrat Senators Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling « Common Sense Political Thought

 

[candycorn]

At work as we speak.

How's being a complete bitch going these days as you post?

Ask yourself...afterall you're mine.

PS: You're not working...you're posting on a message board while you blame President Obama for your failing business.

Obviously you are the cause of your own considerable, numerous, and abject failures.

I haven't mentioned my business in a while. Funny thing is my failing business was awarded the Super Service Award a couple weeks ago from Angieslist.

You, however continue to be a bitch daily.

And as your business fails, you helplessly post messages on an internet message board....

As for being a bitch...it would seem as though your former competitors (you're apparently no longer competitive) have made you theirs.

Be careful when you drop your welfare check...they may want to take another pass at you, Grumps.

 

[Trajan]

Nice going Mr. President. Cordray is > qualified by being a former Attorney General. You also DO have the political capital:
pnj.com | National News | Pensacola News Journal

The president also was expected to announce other recess appointments on Wednesday.

Until now, he has made 28. Bush made more than 170 during his presidency. Bill Clinton made almost 140.

Obama's decision to make a recess appointment is certain to cause an uproar from Capitol Hill to Wall Street. He is essentially declaring the Senate's short off-and-on legislative sessions a sham intended to block his appointments.

The above would be true. Also, makes Wall Street banksters & Senate Repubs mad? Must be the right thing to do

warren never got a vote, why? because reid could not get it past the dems either hello. history doesn't start when its convenient for you.

you do realize that that Consumer affairs bureau is written so as to be completely unaccountable...you know that, right? does it matter to you?

do know that just 18 months ago obama fought for a 3 day benchmark as to the senate having to be out of session before a recess appt. could be made.....so, whats changed?


and, ried in years past has used the pro forma session to block bush from making appointments and bush didn't.

any comments to those points? or is your hackaggae so deep and wide it doesn't matter?

 

[Stephanie]

links in article at site

SNIP:

Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution
By Phil Kerpen

Published January 04, 2012
| FoxNews.com

Print Email Share Comments
Text Size

AP

July 18, 2011: President Obama announces the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”



Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.



Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”



If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense. But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.



According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.



The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”



In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House. Speaker John Boehner has properly withheld that consent to prevent Obama from installing radical appointees into key positions.



There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy. In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010: “Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.”



Obama’s attempt to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray while the Senate is in pro forma session is especially galling in light of the history of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the broad powers that Cordray – if Obama’s sleight of hand is permitted by the courts – will wield over the United States economy.



Read more: Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks The Constitution | Fox News

 

[Mustang]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans don't make a big deal of this much beyond Mitch McConnell's hissyfit. Can't imagine they'd wanna have to actually justify why they've been blocking this guy to begin with.

I wouldn't bet on that since it's clear that the Republicans have an almost irrational desire to want to block as much of Obama's agenda as they can. Additionally, it doesn't seem to matter to them what it is that they block. If Obama is for it, they want to block it, even if they were once advocates for the same idea. What's more, it doesn't appear that they much care how they manage to make that happen. So, if President Obama actually has the temerity to do an end run around them (especially if it's successful), it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't relish a constitutional show down.

After all, don't you remember what happened when Obama wanted the debt ceiling raised just like several presidents before him. Republicans showed frightening willingness to play 'chicken' with the US credit rating.

after all:
snip:
All Democrat Senators Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling
Posted by John Hitchcock on 17 July 2011, 2:54 am
0diggsdiggThe year was 2006. The President was George W Bush. The debt ceiling was being approached. And every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling.



Let’s see.
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Harry Reid
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumer
And the rest of the Democrats

I guess they all wanted the US to default on its debt. I guess they all wanted senior citizens to lose their Social Security checks. I guess they all wanted Medicare and Medicaid recipients to lose their healthcare.


from..
All Democrat Senators Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling « Common Sense Political Thought

You don't know much about how congress works, do you?

When a measure has the votes to pass, and everyone knows it, it's common for the opposition party to engage in what's known as a protest vote in order to voice their opposition to certain policies of the majority. These votes usually include statements of why they voted that way. But there's never any real danger of the measure not passing.

[This is similar to when the majority will actually allow one or more members of their own caucus to vote against a bill that will absolutely pass because there are enough votes to pass it) because the bill is politically unpopular in the members' districts. So, for example, if there is a bill to cut milk price supports, you can bet that it wouldn't be popular in states like WI or VT, and congressmen from those states would get killed in the next election if they voted for it.]

The difference with the last vote to increase the debt ceiling is that there was actually a very real danger that the measure might fail, which would have been a first.

 

[Trajan]

I guess the clinton justice dept wasn't good enough or the argument his own folks made to the SC 18 months ago either ala the 3 days required for recess.

 

[WillowTree]

None of this shit is playing well with the white independents..

 

[WillowTree]

the two threads on this topic started by conservatives have been placed under "congress" the one started by the libtard is still up here in politics..

 

[Mustang]

None of this shit is playing well with the white independents..

It's a little early to make that call, isn't it?

At any rate, given the Republicans' well known public support for tax cuts (including additional tax cuts) for the rich at the same time that they almost scuttled the payroll tax cut at the end of last year, I think it's a really bad PR mistake in the making to be seen blocking an appointment to the bureau that is set up to protect consumers from predatory lending and other abuses by large financial companies.

 

[Trajan]

None of this shit is playing well with the white independents..

It's a little early to make that call, isn't it?

At any rate, given the Republicans' well known public support for tax cuts (including additional tax cuts) for the rich at the same time that they almost scuttled the payroll tax cut at the end of last year, I think it's a really bad PR mistake in the making to be seen blocking an appointment to the bureau that is set up to protect consumers from predatory lending and other abuses by large financial companies.

the fight was a hell about a heck of a lot more than the bureau in and of itself. Reid could not get his own party to pass warren in an A&C vote last year, but you knew that, right?

 

[Mustang]

None of this shit is playing well with the white independents..

It's a little early to make that call, isn't it?

At any rate, given the Republicans' well known public support for tax cuts (including additional tax cuts) for the rich at the same time that they almost scuttled the payroll tax cut at the end of last year, I think it's a really bad PR mistake in the making to be seen blocking an appointment to the bureau that is set up to protect consumers from predatory lending and other abuses by large financial companies.

the fight was a hell about a heck of a lot more than the bureau in and of itself. Reid could not get his own party to pass warren in an A&C vote last year, but you knew that, right?

Was she ever nominated for the post?

 

[Trajan]

It's a little early to make that call, isn't it?

At any rate, given the Republicans' well known public support for tax cuts (including additional tax cuts) for the rich at the same time that they almost scuttled the payroll tax cut at the end of last year, I think it's a really bad PR mistake in the making to be seen blocking an appointment to the bureau that is set up to protect consumers from predatory lending and other abuses by large financial companies.

the fight was a hell about a heck of a lot more than the bureau in and of itself. Reid could not get his own party to pass warren in an A&C vote last year, but you knew that, right?

Was she ever nominated for the post?

*shrugs*matters not, there was no secret, she set up the bureau from the git go.

obama had her set up the bureau, awaiting the nose counting which reid could not make happen. reid and obama wanted her,( geithner actually advised against her btw too) so sppt. was lukewarm, his own caucus told him, her A&C vote if nominated would be problematic, he let her dangle till july. oh and you don't even need to be nominated to get a recess appt. either.

 

[Mustang]

the fight was a hell about a heck of a lot more than the bureau in and of itself. Reid could not get his own party to pass warren in an A&C vote last year, but you knew that, right?

Was she ever nominated for the post?

*shrugs*matters not, there was no secret, she set up the bureau from the git go.

obama had her set up the bureau, awaiting the nose counting which reid could not make happen. reid and obama wanted her,( geithner actually advised against her btw too) so sppt. was lukewarm, his own caucus told him, her A&C vote if nominated would be problematic, he let her dangle till july. oh and you don't even need to be nominated to get a recess appt. either.

What do you mean, "it matters not"?

If she was never nominated, there was never an issue of a confirmation hearing, let alone a recess appointment.

 

[EriktheRed]

You guys think this is bad there are more recess appointments in the pipeline, The NLRB has three vacant seats that will soon be filled in spite of their partisan obstruction. Don't like it? Tell your congressman to make a BIG deal about it when congress comes back. Tell them to make numerous floor speeches to make the case exactly why these appointments have been held up because up until now they have not had much to say other than Obama is a socialist and such.

Yup, they'll sure be looking forward to having that conversation, won't they?