Obama's Recess Appointment Sparks Showdown

[applecorped]

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...fight-over-obamas-appointments-almost-certain

"Obama infuriated Republicans Wednesday by announcing the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Senate Republicans had blocked Cordray's nomination for months, so the president bypassed them with a recess appointment during the holiday break.
He followed that up later in the day with recess appointments for three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), heading off another likely GOP filibuster.
The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't a showdown just what he's looking for?

Remember when Republicans said appointments should get an "up or down vote"?

 

[leftysergeant]

How can the Senate be in session with nothing vaguely resembling a quorum present?

 

[johnny karate]

Hard to believe something Obama does would anger Republicans.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Someone comes in and turns on the (by god incandescent!) lights every couple of days.

And Boehner has the gall to say Obama's recess appointments are some sort of "power grab" that he thinks the courts will find "illegitimate"!

 

[leftysergeant]

The Vice President presides over the Senate. He has not called the Senate to order.

They aint in session.

 

[Newtons Bit]

How can the Senate be in session with nothing vaguely resembling a quorum present?

It happened during Bush's term.

 

[BenBurch]

Go Obama. Bush was NOT shy about controversial recess appointments, and Obama shouldn't be, either. There is a reason for this rule. Congress could have changed it a million times. They need to man up.

 

[leftysergeant]

It happened during Bush's term.

Reid called the session. He had that authority.

No republicon turd currently has that authority. They are doing the power grab, not Obama.

After their boy used the move to recess appoint a waste of skin like Bolton, they have no grounds to whine about appointing an apparently sane person the same way.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Reid called the session. He had that authority.

No republicon turd currently has that authority. They are doing the power grab, not Obama.

After their boy used the move to recess appoint a waste of skin like Bolton, they have no grounds to whine about appointing an apparently sane person the same way.

You might want to read up on how Congressional Sessions are defined. The Senate cannot go into recess without the approval of the House (and vice versa).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hah, I would voice my true thoughts, but I would be guaranteed a yellow card. Just insert your worst insults here: ____________

Those are for the Democrats and the joyful party-goers.

Don't you remember when you called Bush's recess appointments power grabs? When the left wing talked about unconstitutionality?

And now Obama does it and it is justified because the Republicans were meanies. Even further he is overturning the tactic Democrats used to stop Bush's appointments. It is absurd, just like the filibuster that caused the situation. But is flipping around more inane rules going to fix anything?

 

[DavidJames]

Don't you remember when you called Bush's recess appointments power grabs? When the left wing talked about unconstitutionality?

Please remind us, with quotes, thanks.

 

[Tricky]

How can the Senate be in session with nothing vaguely resembling a quorum present?

They invoked a rarely used rule to keep the Senate technically "in session" even though there's nobody there. Of course, Republicans have used recess appointments much more frequently than Obama, but don't confuse them with facts.

 

[Bri]

They invoked a rarely used rule to keep the Senate technically "in session" even though there's nobody there. Of course, Republicans have used recess appointments much more frequently than Obama, but don't confuse them with facts.

The Democrats have used the same trick of being technically "in session" to prevent Republican presidents (most recently Bush) from recess appointments. This is apparently the first time a president has done a recess appointment when the Senate was technically "in session" so although it might be a good political move (it will further the narrative of the Republicans being obstructionist if they take him to court on it), it does in fact set a precedent that may come back to bite the Democrats in the butt later on when they want to use the trick to prevent an appointment they don't like.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

The Democrats have used the same trick of being technically "in session" to prevent Republican presidents (most recently Bush) from recess appointments. This is apparently the first time a president has done a recess appointment when the Senate was technically "in session" so although it might be a good political move (it will further the narrative of the Republicans being obstructionist if they take him to court on it), it does in fact set a precedent that may come back to bite the Democrats in the butt later on when they want to use the trick to prevent an appointment they don't like.

-Bri

Well, I did say it was "rarely" use, not "never" used. The thing is, this set of GOP congresscritters is the most obstructionist ever, using these tricks regularly to impede legislation and appointments. And they make no bones about it. They want Obama to fail. Maybe Limbaugh was a bit more frank about it, but other conservatives have essentially said the same thing by word or action. And yes, the Democrats, when they fall out of power, will now probably do the same thing. It has come to this. The party is now more important than the country. This is a very bad example the GOP is setting by the extreme amount of obstructionism they're displaying, and it is going to hurt us down the road. A lot.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Didn't Obama try to get these through normal channels and they blocked all of them because of some constantly shifting goalpost?

Honestly, if you're going to act like children...

(I can't wait to see this happen during a Republican adminstration.)

 

[Puppycow]

Don't you remember when you called Bush's recess appointments power grabs? When the left wing talked about unconstitutionality?

Uh, no, actually I don't recall ever saying any such thing.

But I agree with you if you mean that the Democrats should never have started this stupid practice and it serves them right to have it used against them now that the tables are turned.

But we'll let the courts sort it out and then we'll have a legal precedent.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't why the legislature gets "recess" anyway. How many citizens have jobs that just stop for a while? Surely governing (allegedly governing) the country is important enough to happen year round?

 

[leftysergeant]

It happened during Bush's term.

Dude, check the names in that article. There was someone with authority there to call the chamber to order. That chinless drongo from Tennessee does not have that authority.

 

[Bri]

Well, I did say it was "rarely" use, not "never" used.

Except that these pro-forma sessions by Democrats aren't all that rare, and were practically invented by Harry Reid, a Democrat. According to this primer on recess appointments from the Washington Post:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) earns the blame — or credit — for trying to block recess appointments. Starting in Nov. 2007 through the end of Bush’s presidency, he ordered the Senate to meet in pro-forma sessions, or short meetings, over the holidays and traditional summer and spring recesses. No official business was conducted during the brief sessions and the move prevented Bush from making any recess appointments through the end of his presidency.

(Continuing the practice during the Obama years, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) even had to gavel in a 22-second pro-forma session across the street from the U.S. Capitol last summer on the day of the Washington earthquake.)​

The thing is, this set of GOP congresscritters is the most obstructionist ever, using these tricks regularly to impede legislation and appointments. And they make no bones about it. They want Obama to fail. Maybe Limbaugh was a bit more frank about it, but other conservatives have essentially said the same thing by word or action. And yes, the Democrats, when they fall out of power, will now probably do the same thing. It has come to this. The party is now more important than the country. This is a very bad example the GOP is setting by the extreme amount of obstructionism they're displaying, and it is going to hurt us down the road. A lot.

Both sides have used them, but you have a point concerning the number and nature of obstructions of presidential appointments, and an argument can be made that the Republicans practically forced Obama's hands by going overboard with them when historically these sorts of blocks of presidential appointments were reserved for cases where the minority party really didn't want a particular person appointed to a particular position rather than attempting to prevent the operation of a whole program they don't like.

-Bri