President to use recess appointment for CFPB :-)

[peach174]

Someone somewhere decided that as long as the Senate met every three days, then the Senate is not in recess.

However, Evans clearly states that the length of time the Senate is out of session is not set. They also stated there is precedence for this type of appointment when they said, "offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter".

So while "time out" and "time in" might work on the playground, it does not work in the courts.

The Senate was in recess. The appointment is legal.

No the Senate was and still is in pro forma.

Sen. Harry Reid did the same thing while under President Bush.
President Bush respected the law of pro forma and President Obama has not.

Correction - I menat the House is in pro forma not the Senate.

But the Constitution says Congress, it does not say House or Senate.
So is the congress in recess or not?
The constitution does not say one way or the other.

 

[kiwiman127]

According to the Deseret News, Obama made the appointment during a break between sessions. So technically the Senate was in recess?

"Presidents of both parties long have gotten around a stalled confirmation by naming a nominee to a job when the Senate is on a break through a process known as a recess appointment.

But Obama went further by squeezing in his appointment during a break between rapid Senate sessions this week, an unusual move that the GOP called an arrogant power grab."
Obama bypasses Senate, makes recess appointments | Deseret News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone somewhere decided that as long as the Senate met every three days, then the Senate is not in recess.

However, Evans clearly states that the length of time the Senate is out of session is not set. They also stated there is precedence for this type of appointment when they said, "offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter".

So while "time out" and "time in" might work on the playground, it does not work in the courts.

The Senate was in recess. The appointment is legal.

No the Senate was and still is in pro forma.

Sen. Harry Reid did the same thing while under President Bush.
President Bush respected the law of pro forma and President Obama has not.

Bush should not have tolerated the Dem senate doing it either.

A specific example of Byrd and Bush and the Senate, and a defintion of "pro forma" and how Obama has not specifically followed that would be helpful.

 

[g5000]

Someone somewhere decided that as long as the Senate met every three days, then the Senate is not in recess.

However, Evans clearly states that the length of time the Senate is out of session is not set. They also stated there is precedence for this type of appointment when they said, "offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter".

So while "time out" and "time in" might work on the playground, it does not work in the courts.

The Senate was in recess. The appointment is legal.

No the Senate was and still is in pro forma.

Sen. Harry Reid did the same thing while under President Bush.
President Bush respected the law of pro forma and President Obama has not.

Bush should not have tolerated the Dem senate doing it either.

A specific example of Byrd and Bush and the Senate, and a defintion of "pro forma" and how Obama has not specifically followed that would be helpful.

I can do that.

As noted above, the Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter recesses have become more commonplace, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this issue. A 1993 Justice Department brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days.24 (See above, “How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President May Make a Recess Appointment?&#8221

Practices Implemented Unilaterally by the Senate

The logic of the argument laid out in the Justice Department brief appears to underlie the congressional practices that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.25 From November 2007 through the end of the George W. Bush presidency, the Senate structured its recesses in a way that was intended, at least initially, to prevent the President from making recess appointments.26 The approach involved the use of pro forma sessions, which are short meetings of the Senate or the House held for the purpose of avoiding a recess of more than three days and therefore the necessity of obtaining the consent of the other House. Normally, it is understood that during a pro forma session no business will be conducted.27
On November 16, 2007, the Senate Majority Leader announced that the Senate would “be coming in for pro forma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments.”28 The Senate recessed later that day and pro forma meetings were convened on November 20, 23, 27, and 29, with no business conducted. The Senate next conducted business after reconvening on December 3, 2007. During the remainder of 2007 and 2008, similar procedures were followed during most other periods that would otherwise have been Senate recesses of a week or longer in duration.29
The Senate pro forma session practice appears to have achieved its stated intent: President Bush made no recess appointments between the initial pro forma sessions in November 2007 and the end of his presidency.

Link

Unilateral action. Made up on the fly.

And now the Democrats are butt-hurt their own tactics have been turned on them:

During the middle of the first session of the 112th Congress, a new related practice appeared to emerge. On May 25, 2011, in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, 20 Senators urged him “to refuse to pass any resolution to allow the Senate to recess or adjourn for more than three days for the remainder of the president’s term.”31 The letter stated that “President Obama has used recess appointments to fill powerful positions with individuals whose views are so outside the mainstream that they cannot be confirmed by the Senate of the United States,” and it referred to the Senate practices of 2007 as “a successful attempt to thwart President Bush’s recess appointment powers.” The request of the Senators appeared intended to similarly block President Obama from using the recess appointment power.
In a June 15, 2011 letter to the Speaker of the House, the House majority leader, and the House majority whip, 78 Representatives requested that “all appropriate measures be taken to prevent any and all recess appointments by preventing the Senate from officially recessing for the remainder of the 112th Congress.”32

As of December 8, 2011, no concurrent resolution of adjournment had been introduced in either
chamber since May 12, 2011. During periods of extended absence, the Senate has used pro forma sessions to avoid recesses of more than three days.33

As of December 8, 2011, President Obama had not made any recess appointments during one of the periods of extended Senate absence during which pro forma sessions have been held.

So we have a bunch of crybabies on both sides of the fence using informal playground rules against each other.

The link goes on to state the two previous Presidents have made appointments when the Senate was out for less than 3 days. Truman and Teddy Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's appointments were made during a recess which lasted less than a day.

 

[bripat9643]

Someone somewhere decided that as long as the Senate met every three days, then the Senate is not in recess.

However, Evans clearly states that the length of time the Senate is out of session is not set. They also stated there is precedence for this type of appointment when they said, "offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter".

So while "time out" and "time in" might work on the playground, it does not work in the courts.

The Senate was in recess. The appointment is legal.

the only problem with your idiotic theory is that the Senate sets its own rules. The Senate decides when its in recess. They set the rule that says they only have to meet every three days to remain in session.

Obama does not set the rules of the Senate.

The way you turds are falling all over yourselves to justify Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution really is disgraceful.

 

[bripat9643]

Obama's appointment was entirely constitutional.

Class dismissed!

Wrong.

Class dismissed!

 

[bripat9643]

Clinton didn't have to deal with the kind of shit being dished out by this group, so you can shove that little comparison. These assholes aren't interested in letting this Prez govern.

That's true enough. However, that doesn't allow Obama to wipe his ass on the Constitution. Rules are rules.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No the Senate was and still is in pro forma.

Sen. Harry Reid did the same thing while under President Bush.
President Bush respected the law of pro forma and President Obama has not.

Bush should not have tolerated the Dem senate doing it either.

A specific example of Byrd and Bush and the Senate, and a defintion of "pro forma" and how Obama has not specifically followed that would be helpful.

I can do that.

As noted above, the Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter recesses have become more commonplace, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this issue. A 1993 Justice Department brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days.24 (See above, “How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President May Make a Recess Appointment?”)

Practices Implemented Unilaterally by the Senate

The logic of the argument laid out in the Justice Department brief appears to underlie the congressional practices that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.25 From November 2007 through the end of the George W. Bush presidency, the Senate structured its recesses in a way that was intended, at least initially, to prevent the President from making recess appointments.26 The approach involved the use of pro forma sessions, which are short meetings of the Senate or the House held for the purpose of avoiding a recess of more than three days and therefore the necessity of obtaining the consent of the other House. Normally, it is understood that during a pro forma session no business will be conducted.27
On November 16, 2007, the Senate Majority Leader announced that the Senate would “be coming in for pro forma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments.”28 The Senate recessed later that day and pro forma meetings were convened on November 20, 23, 27, and 29, with no business conducted. The Senate next conducted business after reconvening on December 3, 2007. During the remainder of 2007 and 2008, similar procedures were followed during most other periods that would otherwise have been Senate recesses of a week or longer in duration.29
The Senate pro forma session practice appears to have achieved its stated intent: President Bush made no recess appointments between the initial pro forma sessions in November 2007 and the end of his presidency.

Link

Unilateral action. Made up on the fly.

And now the Democrats are butt-hurt their own tactics have been turned on them:

During the middle of the first session of the 112th Congress, a new related practice appeared to emerge. On May 25, 2011, in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, 20 Senators urged him “to refuse to pass any resolution to allow the Senate to recess or adjourn for more than three days for the remainder of the president’s term.”31 The letter stated that “President Obama has used recess appointments to fill powerful positions with individuals whose views are so outside the mainstream that they cannot be confirmed by the Senate of the United States,” and it referred to the Senate practices of 2007 as “a successful attempt to thwart President Bush’s recess appointment powers.” The request of the Senators appeared intended to similarly block President Obama from using the recess appointment power.
In a June 15, 2011 letter to the Speaker of the House, the House majority leader, and the House majority whip, 78 Representatives requested that “all appropriate measures be taken to prevent any and all recess appointments by preventing the Senate from officially recessing for the remainder of the 112th Congress.”32

As of December 8, 2011, no concurrent resolution of adjournment had been introduced in either
chamber since May 12, 2011. During periods of extended absence, the Senate has used pro forma sessions to avoid recesses of more than three days.33

As of December 8, 2011, President Obama had not made any recess appointments during one of the periods of extended Senate absence during which pro forma sessions have been held.

So we have a bunch of crybabies on both sides of the fence using informal playground rules against each other.

The link goes on to state the two previous Presidents have made appointments when the Senate was out for less than 3 days. Truman and Teddy Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's appointments were made during a recess which lasted less than a day.

Thanks. Both sides are wrong, and Obama will have his way on this, as Bush should have done while in office.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Clinton didn't have to deal with the kind of shit being dished out by this group, so you can shove that little comparison. These assholes aren't interested in letting this Prez govern.

That's true enough. However, that doesn't allow Obama to wipe his ass on the Constitution. Rules are rules.

However, the rules don't back the pubs anymore than it did the dems.

 

[EriktheRed]

Someone somewhere decided that as long as the Senate met every three days, then the Senate is not in recess.

However, Evans clearly states that the length of time the Senate is out of session is not set. They also stated there is precedence for this type of appointment when they said, "offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter".

So while "time out" and "time in" might work on the playground, it does not work in the courts.

The Senate was in recess. The appointment is legal.

the only problem with your idiotic theory is that the Senate sets its own rules. The Senate decides when its in recess. They set the rule that says they only have to meet every three days to remain in session.

Obama does not set the rules of the Senate.

The way you turds are falling all over yourselves to justify Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution really is disgraceful.

Well, as someone else said earlier, let 'em take it to court, then.

 

[EriktheRed]

Clinton didn't have to deal with the kind of shit being dished out by this group, so you can shove that little comparison. These assholes aren't interested in letting this Prez govern.

That's true enough. However, that doesn't allow Obama to wipe his ass on the Constitution. Rules are rules.

Nice to see you're at least admitting what a bunch of pricks Senate Republicans are being.

Let 'em now make a big stink over this and explain why they're being a bunch of assholes.

 

[bripat9643]

That's true enough. However, that doesn't allow Obama to wipe his ass on the Constitution. Rules are rules.

However, the rules don't back the pubs anymore than it did the dems.

You have it backwards. The Republicans back the rules. The Democrats piss on them.

 

[bripat9643]

Nice to see you're at least admitting what a bunch of pricks Senate Republicans are being.

Let 'em now make a big stink over this and explain why they're being a bunch of assholes.

They aren't being pricks. They're doing their job. They were elected specifically to obstruct Obama.

It sucks to be him, I'm sure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat, you piss on everybody with whom you disagree.

Obama will win this hands down, and so will every president in the future.

A senate should not hold nominations hostage, and the house has no power to do so.

 

[EriktheRed]

Nice to see you're at least admitting what a bunch of pricks Senate Republicans are being.

Let 'em now make a big stink over this and explain why they're being a bunch of assholes.

They aren't being pricks. They're doing their job. They were elected specifically to obstruct Obama.

It sucks to be him, I'm sure.

Actually, I think he's relishing the fight, as he should be.

 

[EriktheRed]

bripat, you piss on everybody with whom you disagree.

Obama will win this hands down, and so will every president in the future.

A senate should not hold nominations hostage, and the house has no power to do so.

Well, maybe as a result of this we can have actual laws designed to let a Presidents' nominations get an up-or-down vote. Kinda like wiseacre talked about earlier.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat, you piss on everybody with whom you disagree.

Obama will win this hands down, and so will every president in the future.

A senate should not hold nominations hostage, and the house has no power to do so.

Well, maybe as a result of this we can have actual laws designed to let a Presidents' nominations get an up-or-down vote. Kinda like wiseacre talked about earlier.

I agree. And the 60-vote cloture rule needs to be dropped. The senator being able to place hold on a legislation needs to be dropped.

Neither party has been very helpful in governing America well the last twenty odd years.

 

[Mustang]

A Bush recess appointment was challenged in 2004.

Evans vs. Stephens:

Obama's appointment was entirely constitutional.

Class dismissed!

The decision could go either way.

I provided the link. Read it!

We conclude that the President’s appointment was not beyond his constitutional power.

We are not persuaded that the President acted beyond his authority in this
case: both the words of the Constitution and the history of the nation support the
President’s authority.

Clear now?

It depends on how the moves and motives of all are interpreted.

Here's an analogy:

Let's say there's a rural county in the US west somewhere.

And further, let's say that there's a very long well-paved county road with a 65 mph speed limit for about 5 miles. At only one point, there's a farm road at an intersection. It's a private road that's only used for farm equipment to travel from one side to the other when crops are planted, or sprayed, or harvested.

Now, does the county have the right to put a stop sign on the paved road, or even to post a lower speed limit sign of about 25 mph on a half mile stretch of that road.

Maybe.

But what if the only reason the county is doing this has nothing to do with public safety? What if the only reason the county posted the stop sign and the lower speed limit was to create a speed trap? That's different.

Congress is playing a disingenuous game with the pro forma sessions where no business is planned or conducted. And by doing so, they're trying to prevent the president of the us from being able to fulfill his constitutional duties. I cry foul!

 

[Stephanie]

Nice to see you're at least admitting what a bunch of pricks Senate Republicans are being.

Let 'em now make a big stink over this and explain why they're being a bunch of assholes.

They aren't being pricks. They're doing their job. They were elected specifically to obstruct Obama.

It sucks to be him, I'm sure.

Actually, I think he's relishing the fight, as he should be.

well wonderful...let him act like a dick. the people are already sick of him

 

[EriktheRed]

They aren't being pricks. They're doing their job. They were elected specifically to obstruct Obama.

It sucks to be him, I'm sure.

Actually, I think he's relishing the fight, as he should be.

well wonderful...let him act like a dick. the people are already sick of him

Now please contact your congresscritter to get impeachment proceedings going. I'm sure the Republicans in the Senate are eager to explain - in this political climate, no less - why they were holding up not only Cordray's nomination, but also for members of the NLRB.

You think the Prez is so unpopular, they should have no problems, then.