Cordray appointment probably illegal

[daveman]

I'm just trying to figure out why it wasn't "illegal" when Reagan, Bush, Bush did it hundreds of times?

Kind of like "reconciliation". It's only bad when Democrats do it.

When did Bush make a recess appointment when the Senate wasn't actually in recess?

Oh, yeah -- he tried once, but was told it was unconstitutional, so he retracted.

So it looks like once again, reality kicks rderp's ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Without the appointment, the department would probably die.

The question here is why Republicans feel American Consumers shouldn't be protected from the "Flim Flam Man"? Unless Republicans ARE the "Flim Flam Man". Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs"? WMDs? Pure "Flim Flam". The American People have been "Flim Flammed". Obama is just trying to protect individuals. REPUBLICANS SCREAM NO! IT'S "SOCIALISM". More "Flim Flam".

Something to think about, if you can.

The way the CFPB is currently structured it does not answer to Congress at all, and it gets money by having the fed print it. That means that, when a Republican eventually gets elected president, the new director of the CFPB, appointed during a non existent recess, can unilaterally decide that banks can charge high interest rates on loans, force customers to pay late fees even if they pay on time, and all the other bad things you think the government needs to stop. Congress will not be able to do anything because Obama set it up so that the agency can ignore everyone.

The Republicans want the agency restructured so that it answers to Congress, something you should support just tp prevent the scenario I outlined above.

Link?

Link to what? The fact that Republicans will eventually get control of the White House again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm just trying to figure out why it wasn't "illegal" when Reagan, Bush, Bush did it hundreds of times?

Kind of like "reconciliation". It's only bad when Democrats do it.

Because, when they did it, Congress was actually in recess?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm just trying to figure out why it wasn't "illegal" when Reagan, Bush, Bush did it hundreds of times?

Kind of like "reconciliation". It's only bad when Democrats do it.

You're really stupid eh? I always thought you were pretending.....silly me.

If he is really that stupid someone must be typing for him, no one that stupid could learn to type, or read.

 

[Polk]

I don't remember the law saying anything about "type of session" being relevant.

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

Sorry Polk, it is not the President's job to decide what a "session" is.

I agree, but he's free to make to argument. It has intellectual merit, even if it likely doesn't have a legal one.

 

[daveman]

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

Sorry Polk, it is not the President's job to decide what a "session" is.

I agree, but he's free to make to argument. It has intellectual merit, even if it likely doesn't have a legal one.

It doesn't have intellectual merit. It's a petulant, childish tantrum by someone who hates not getting his way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

Sorry Polk, it is not the President's job to decide what a "session" is.

I agree, but he's free to make to argument. It has intellectual merit, even if it likely doesn't have a legal one.

Why didn't he just adjourn them?

Article 2, Section 3 "... (A)nd in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper."

 

[Amelia]

Sorry Polk, it is not the President's job to decide what a "session" is.

I agree, but he's free to make to argument. It has intellectual merit, even if it likely doesn't have a legal one.

Why didn't he just adjourn them?

Article 2, Section 3 "... (A)nd in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper."

Because that wouldn't have given the "I don't care whether you say you are in session or not" impression which he wanted to impart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Office of the Presidency is going to win this one hands down.

That will be good for all presidents of the future. President Romney will certainly appreciate it.

 

[daveman]

The Office of the Presidency is going to win this one hands down.

That will be good for all presidents of the future. President Romney will certainly appreciate it.

Gobama!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Office of the Presidency is going to win this one hands down.

That will be good for all presidents of the future. President Romney will certainly appreciate it.

Gobama!!

GoRomney! You can vote for your "Dear Leader".