HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama Won’t Make Recess A...

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:47 PM

Obama Won’t Make Recess Appointments Today

Liberal groups hoping President Barack Obama would use the moments today between the first and second session of the 112th Congress to make a recess appointment of Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be disappointed.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that Obama would not be making any recess appointments today and declined further comment.

Several advocacy groups have been pushing Obama for months to make a recess appointment of Cordray while Republicans have gone to extraordinary steps to block Cordray and other Obama nominees, forcing the Senate to stay for pro forma sessions. Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have pledged to block Cordray until a new law is passed reforming the CFPB to dilute its power.

McConnell blocked a host of appointments at the end of 2011 after the White House refused to give him assurances that it would not make recess appointments during the holiday break.

more: http://www.rollcall.com/news/obama_wont_make_recess_appointments_today-211311-1.html?pos=hln

87 replies, 11802 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 87 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama Won’t Make Recess Appointments Today (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2012 OP
ixion Jan 2012 #1
monmouth Jan 2012 #4
comipinko Jan 2012 #5
Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #10
onenote Jan 2012 #14
Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #17
onenote Jan 2012 #21
Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #23
Charlemagne Jan 2012 #29
onenote Jan 2012 #48
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #61
atreides1 Jan 2012 #24
onenote Jan 2012 #27
progressoid Jan 2012 #33
onenote Jan 2012 #49
progressoid Jan 2012 #53
onenote Jan 2012 #56
whathehell Jan 2012 #64
24601 Feb 2012 #82
ixion Jan 2012 #16
efhmc Jan 2012 #66
snooper2 Mar 2012 #84
comipinko Jan 2012 #2
nineteen50 Jan 2012 #3
Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #6
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #7
immoderate Jan 2012 #8
boppers Jan 2012 #59
immoderate Jan 2012 #73
Lasher Jan 2012 #9
paulk Jan 2012 #11
dougolat Jan 2012 #12
OKNancy Jan 2012 #13
leftyohiolib Jan 2012 #15
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #18
leftyohiolib Jan 2012 #20
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #22
onenote Jan 2012 #25
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #30
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #32
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #34
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #35
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #36
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #37
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #40
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #43
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #46
onenote Jan 2012 #50
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #68
onenote Jan 2012 #69
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #74
onenote Jan 2012 #78
leftyohiolib Jan 2012 #39
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #41
a2liberal Jan 2012 #19
sulphurdunn Jan 2012 #26
Charlemagne Jan 2012 #28
GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #31
bigwillq Jan 2012 #38
madrchsod Jan 2012 #42
Tx4obama Jan 2012 #44
4dsc Jan 2012 #45
Fearless Jan 2012 #55
slay Jan 2012 #47
Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #51
Gringostan Jan 2012 #52
Fearless Jan 2012 #54
Zorra Jan 2012 #57
tavalon Jan 2012 #58
boppers Jan 2012 #60
tavalon Jan 2012 #63
joshcryer Jan 2012 #62
Kingofalldems Jan 2012 #65
Kingofalldems Feb 2012 #81
Spazito Jan 2012 #67
klook Jan 2012 #70
russspeakeasy Jan 2012 #71
msanthrope Jan 2012 #76
russspeakeasy Jan 2012 #77
Kingofalldems Feb 2012 #80
Islandlife Jan 2012 #72
GoCubsGo Jan 2012 #75
Kingofalldems Jan 2012 #79
Freddie Stubbs Mar 2012 #85
Kingofalldems Mar 2012 #83
nanabugg Mar 2012 #86
Judi Lynn Mar 2012 #87

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:48 PM

1. Of course he won't. It would upset the GOP.

 

Par for the course from this ineffectual pResident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ixion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:50 PM

4. Oh please, don't you get tired of your constant whine?...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:51 PM

5. Oh please, don't you get tired of your constant water carrying?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:01 PM

10. Just to clarify

What would be the reasoning not to make the appointments??

Should these appointments be held up just because the republicans are not getting
everything they want and not because these people are not qualified??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:22 PM

14. Because only once in history did a president make recess appointments

based on a recess of less than a second. Indeed, only twice in history has the recess appointment power been used during a recess of three or fewer days. Truman in 1948-49 made a relatively non-controversial recess appointment on the first day of a three day recess to give a new term to a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board whose term had expired. The only situation comparable to the one facing Obama dates back to 1903, when Teddy Roosevelt made over 150 recess appointments during the "constructive" recess that occurred in the fraction of time that occurred between the gaveling closed one session of Congress and the commencement of the next session in the next breath. Most of those appointments were, as a I understand it, military commissions.

In other words, to make a recess appointment under the current circumstances would be moving into largely uncharted waters and would, of course, set a precedent for the repubs to do the same thing down the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:27 PM

17. What is the difference between making the appointments now

and the 171 appointments that bush made??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:49 PM

21. The length of the recess in which they were made

As I said, there are only two instances in history in which recess appointments were made during a "recess" that lasted three days or less. One was Truman, which was a three day recess. The other was T.Roosevelt, who made recess appointment during the mostly existential break that occurs when Congress ends one session and simultaneously commences a new one. During President Clinton's first term, the Justice Department took the position that the recess appointment power may be exercised during breaks in excess of three days. The shortest recess during which Bush made recess appointments was 10 days, a period that no one could question. An appointment claimed to have been made during the moment between the gaveling closed of the first session of the 112th Congress and the commencement of the second session a second or two later would face questions about its legitimacy not faced by any other recess appointment in over 100 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:00 PM

23. My point being is that the republicans

are refusing to let this government function
they are not voting on the appointments
not because the people are not qualified but they
want to use it as leverage to gain something else
In my opinion they are traitors
and if you feel what they are doing is fine
then I see no reason the President can not use
the tools that are open to him
He should have told them either vote on my appointments are I
will recess appointment them

I have a right to a functioning government
if the republicans refuse to give me that government
then they are not doing their job and then should be
branded as traitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:34 PM

29. speaking of tradition

 

Congress is supposed to honor the position of the president and, if the person is qualified, vote in favor of the appointment. The republicans arent doing this. They want this country to fail rather than have Obama score a few points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlemagne (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:07 PM

48. More theory than reality in recent years

Being qualified is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't think Bolton was an appropriate choice to be US representative to the UN and had no problem with the Democrats filibustering his nomination. One reason that there are recess appointments is that for various reasons not all vacancies get voted on by the Senate in a timely manner. Have the repubs taken the tactic of blocking presidential appointees to a entirely new level? Of course. But we need to be careful in how we criticize what they're doing. I certainly don't believe that the Senate is just supposed to rubber stamp whomever the president approves. And as I said, being qualified is often a subjective thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:37 AM

61. Well, how about making it three instances?? Do you think for a moment Bush would not have done so?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:03 PM

24. Okay

But what makes you believe that a Republican president won't do it, given the chance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:08 PM

27. Bush I didn't

No president in over 100 years has tried to make a recess appointment during a recess of 3 days or less. Bush himself only made recess appointments during recesses of ten days or more.

Let them take the risk of going against history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:48 PM

33. Well that's some pretty convoluted thinking.

If it has already happened, then the precedent is already set. That is no reason to avoid doing it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:09 PM

49. So if Bush I had made recess appointments on January 3 1992 you'd have been fine with it?

My bet is that you wouldn't have. A single event over 100 years ago that goes against the opinion of a Democratic Department of Justice is a thin thin reed upon which to make an effective case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:07 PM

53. 3 day or 10 day recess - what difference does it make?

The president has an opportunity to fill critical positions that they have been blocking. Should we wait another year? Two?

They're playing hard ball and we're afraid to come out of the dugout.


Here:

A few commentators have suggested that this precedent only applies to what are known as “intersession” recesses — that is, the recess that occurs around the beginning of each new year when one session of Congress ends and another begins. Under this theory, President Obama blew his chance to make recess appointments when he allowed the second session of the 112th Congress to begin at noon today without making any appointments. This argument, however, has no basis in the Constitution itself. As Evans explains, “the text of the Constitution does not differentiate expressly between inter- and intrasession recesses for the Recess Appointments Clause,” and “the main purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause—to enable the President to fill vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government —supports reading both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of the Clause.”

Recess appointments during very brief recesses are not common, but they are only uncommon because few if any senators have ever engaged in the kind of systematic and determined effort to prevent America from governing itself that began once Mitch McConnell took over as Senate Minority Leader. McConnell’s rampant obstructionism can be summed up in just one chart:



That chart represents the number of times a cloture motion — a motion seeking to break a Senate filibuster — was filed in every recent Congress. The massive spike at the end, where the number of cloture motions more than doubles, coincides with when McConnell took over as Minority Leader.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/03/396384/president-obama-reportedly-will-make-recess-appointments-today-or-tomorrow/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:58 PM

56. Recess appointments during the faux intrasession recesses are more defensible

My point was that it was highly unlikely that Obama (or any president) would attempt to make a controversial recess appointment during the essentially fictional recess between Congress gaveling one session to a close and immediately convening a new session. Treating Congress as being in actual recess of multiple days when it using pro forma sessions to evade recess appointments is more defensible in my opinion and may well be what Obama decides to do. If he does, however, it will be with a price, since it will kill the strategy that the Democrats used to keep bush II from making any recesss appointments for two years (and was something that as far as I recall, everyone here applauded at the time).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:10 AM

64. Please...At THIS point, with THIS congress?....Alll bets should be off.

There's no room to "play the gentleman" with these mofos..."Mother May I" won't cut it,

it's do or die. After all, we could hardly "lose" more than we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 04:19 PM

82. yeah - what you say! fuck da fuckin constitution anyway....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:24 PM

16. what tires me are moral relativists

 

who have one standard for their favorite team and another standard for anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ixion (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:30 AM

66. Wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ixion (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 01:12 PM

84. The lower case p is a nice touch....

your still planning on donating right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:48 PM

2. Of course not, that would NOT be bi-patisan.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:50 PM

3. And the corporate federation grows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:54 PM

6. Color me surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:55 PM

7. Wouldn't want to rock the boat! nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:58 PM

8. Consider the downside...

If you can think of one.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:39 AM

59. Sure. The next (R) takes one microsecond to push hundreds of appointments through.

Congress is rendered obsolete when it comes to *all* appointments, checks and balances is eliminated, and we wind up electing dictator-kings.

Gee, what could go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:57 PM

73. I think Bush already did that.

Anyway, recess appointments are not new, and either that will not happen, or perhaps, it already has.

The Constitution is for the little people.


--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:59 PM

9. This is not the way I would play it if I were President right now.

I would recess appoint every single person right now, including judges, who I had nominated so far. But it is not in Obama's nature to do such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:04 PM

11. I'm shocked

just absolutely shocked

Change!

Hope!

Etc!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:13 PM

12. "Just Another Servant Of The Too-Big-To-JAIL!"

capitulating to the REPtilians, again.
Our Leader, of retreat. My tear-ducts are exhausted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:17 PM

13. last paragraph

Nonetheless, there appeared to be a window today, albeit a brief one, for the White House to push through nominees if it chose to do so, as Congress formally closed the first session and convened the second moments later.

---------

Sounds like it might not have been feasible to do so anyway.

Also let's get another source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/202063-white-house-leaves-recess-appointment-an-option-for-consumer-bureau-chief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:23 PM

15. wow i think the gop can just stay home looks like our leader is doing their work for them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:34 PM

18. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

Another outrage widget is manufactured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:43 PM

20. yea by bo himself

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:54 PM

22. Was he supposed to do it in the few seconds between the 2 sessions?

They ended the one session, and then started the next.

The whining around here is endless, and at times, about as rational as the kind of nonsense spewed by the Tea Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:06 PM

25. Some here apparently think so

Of course, I probably should put quotes around the word "think." I only can imagine what these same folks would have said had Bush I attempted to make recess appointments in the momentary "recess" between the end of the first session and beginning of the 102nd Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:39 PM

30. Though I don't find the "whining" nearly as annoying...

Nor as factually challenged as analogizing said whining, or analogizing the OWS movement to the tea party.

Why would you even lob such an hyperbolic grenade into a discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:45 PM

32. Where did I mention OWS??

OPs like this one, screaming about how Obama didn't recess appoint some one during a minute or so window, to my ears, is very similar to the Tea Party screaming that Obama isn't wearing a flag pin ... or that he didn't release his birth certificate.

Its anti-Obama nonsense ... regardless of which side is spewing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:05 PM

34. More bad analogies

When I brought up OWS I was illustrating a tone that I noticed. Whereby both people that complained about policy and the OWS movement have been accused (even here surprisingly enough) of being whiners.

There is a distinct difference between substantive policy critique and being a birther or bitching about flag pins. To conflate it all to being pro or anti President Obama deprives whatever gravitas, intelligence, or legitimacy you imagined your posts to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:14 PM

35. The issue in the OP is a recess appointment.

You brought OWS into it ... I support OWS ... and in no way consider that effort whining.

I made no such statement.

You want to discuss a "substantive policy critique" ... great, but again, the screaming about Obama not appointing anyone in the very brief period between the end of the last session and the start of the next ... is nonsense ... its is NOT a "substantive policy critique".

I'm going to call BS, BS ... whether you like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:22 PM

36. Really?

The primary contrary opinion to the poster seemed to be of the opinion that recess appointments are rare, exotic animals that are almost never seen.

Unfortunately, that is incorrect, if you want to be factual about it Bush II, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan all used recess appointments to all manner of governmental agencies and courts. So basically the contrary position to the idea that President Obama could not or should not do recess appointments is founded in the falsehood that they are somehow not to be done.

Ronald Reagan still holds the record with 243 recess appointments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:28 PM

37. I did not write the what you call the "primary contrary opinion" that you site.

You do realize that, no?

If you want to debate THAT "opinion" ... feel free ... but pleas do so with the person who put it forward.

I did not put that position forward, and I would be FINE if Obama had appointed people in the 10 seconds or so that existed between the end of the last session, and the start of the next.

I commented on the manufactured outrage.

On edit ... read the responses in this thread ... most of those angered at Obama here have no idea that the "window" for such appointments was nearly non-existent.

They appear to be happy to assume that Obama is an evil guy who secretly doesn't want this organization to go forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:41 PM

40. so..

The facts of your post are just analogizing outrage against the administrations policy failures in the face of promises that President Obama made as a candidate to the faux outrage of right wing media stoked salacious nonsense of the teaparty.


I refer to my original statement.


P.S. Throwing in words like "evil guy" is more conspiracy straw-manning logically speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:49 PM

43. What policy failure does this discussion address?

Obama promised to make recess appointments?

You only see the right wing outrage as FAUX because that nonsense is not aimed at you or me.

But you don't seem to recognize FAUX outrage that is crafted to demoralize the left.

The right wing faux outrage is designed to get the right angry enough to VOTE.

The left wing faux outrage is designed to get the left angry enough to STAY HOME.

The goal is the manipulation of turnout. The GOP is actively suppressing the vote where it can. And the media is happy to push 2 totally opposite "Obama Bad" memes ... they do not care which one YOU or I embrace, just so long as we embrace one of them.

Obama beat McCain by ~6% ... if the media can get a 3% increase on the right, and a 3% decrease on the left ... one of the GOP's insane maniacs gets a shot to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

46. The outrage is about policy

I could go into a bloody list as long as my arm at least regarding the policy missteps of this administration. It walked in with a mandate Bush never possesed, yet mysteriously there was never enough support to even get a vote for cloutre (*cough cough* blue dogs) and the conservative democrats in his own party were never forced to stand up for party loyalty and many even went along with the republicans again, and again, and again. (Blue Dogs).

Bush walked in with half of congress against him and was allowed to run rampant. And this was well before all the signing statements, executive orders, absurd and historical levels of overreach.

If you really want to turn people out you should try being reasonable rather than accusing anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton of being part of a vast right wing conspiracy to stay home. I'm sorry but most progressive media is not financed by the right. Would you could say the same for the now defunct DLC which recieved money from various Koch foundations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:14 PM

50. The opinion of the poster as I read it was that a recess appointment

in these particular circumstances -- where Congress adjourns and reconvenes simultaneously -- is a rare occurrence. Which it most certainly is, having been done only once in the nation's history, more than 100 years ago and having involved, for the most part, appointments of military commissions. When similar situations arose in 1992 and 1995, no attempt was made (by Bush I and by Clinton) to make a recess appointment. Indeed, no recess appointment has been made based on a recess of less than 10 days in recent memory.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Obama shouldn't make recess appointments. The problem is that his opportunity to do so has been blocked by the tactic of not recessing. This tactic, I might add, was used by the Democrats (and I heartily approved of them doing so) in 2007 and 2008, preventing bush II from making recess appointments after the Democrats reclaimed control of the Senate.

One last point: contrary to what people seem to think, before he was blocked (by the same sort of tactic that the Democrats used to block bush II), Obama's record in terms of recess appointments was comparable to bush II. In his first three years in office, Bush II made 34 "full time" recess appointments. (He also made 27 recess to "part time" positions, mostly advisory boards and foundations with little or no policy significance). During the first three years of his presidency, Obama has made 28 full time recess appointments. And, in reality, he managed to do that in only 2 years since he's been blocked from making more recess appointments since the repubs took over the House beginning 2011.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:40 AM

68. People were defending NOT making appointments.

Fortunately the President made another decision on this matter.

I refer back to the idea that recess appointments are not some obscure, strange, critter that we should avoid for some bloody reason for some arcane worry of executive overreach. the difference between whether the recess is ten days or two months is a fairly absurd concern to me as the appointments always tend to be political anyways. We have been burned far more than the republicans on non-judicial appointments. Advise and consent should only be rigorously enforced on truly judicial appointments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:48 AM

69. Can you point me to those posts?

What I see are posts addressing how rare it would be for the President to make a recess appointment specifically based on the fleeting "recess" that occurred between the moment the first session of the 112th Congress was adjourned and the second session was commenced. That unquestionably would be "obscure, strange, critter." If there are posts suggesting that recess appointments made during a recess of three days or more are rare, I missed it. Certainly the posts by JoePhilly that were part of this subthread were specifically about the fleeting recess gambit, not a defense of a decision not to make recess appointments generally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #69)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:10 PM

74. Uhm well, I know you will wiggle and spin on this but this was a response you posted to a challenge.

See below. Your positions seem to be a defense to me if you put in context of a response to the challenge of why shouldn't he? Again, the president decided to ignore your wisened constitutional opinion.


-------------------

onenote (19,328 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

14. Because only once in history did a president make recess appointments

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

based on a recess of less than a second. Indeed, only twice in history has the recess appointment power been used during a recess of three or fewer days. Truman in 1948-49 made a relatively non-controversial recess appointment on the first day of a three day recess to give a new term to a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board whose term had expired. The only situation comparable to the one facing Obama dates back to 1903, when Teddy Roosevelt made over 150 recess appointments during the "constructive" recess that occurred in the fraction of time that occurred between the gaveling closed one session of Congress and the commencement of the next session in the next breath. Most of those appointments were, as a I understand it, military commissions.

In other words, to make a recess appointment under the current circumstances would be moving into largely uncharted waters and would, of course, set a precedent for the repubs to do the same thing down the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:50 PM

78. No wiggle or spin. The issue was whether Obama should try to make a recess appointment during

a two-second recess (something that only had been done once before, more than 100 years ago). I didn't think he would or should do so and he didn't. Some others in this thread agreed. What I didn't argue (or see from others ) was that it would be a bad idea to make a recess appointment based on the argument that the Senate has actually been in recess for an extended period. I'm okay with the fact that he has done so, even though it means that we have given up a tactic that was used against the Repubs in the past.

Its really not that complicated:

Recess appointment based on two second recess: really rare, bad idea
Recess appointment based on extended recess: common, good idea.

Indeed, in other posts, I've pointed out that until the repubs started blocking him from making recess appointments using the "pro forma" session tactic, President Obama had been more aggressive than bush II in using his recess appointment power for full time positions (as distinguished from part time, often largely honorary positions).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:39 PM

39. yes. and just b/c you dont like what's said doesnt make it whining

 

anytime someone disagrees with someone else the whinning accusations follow. pres roosevelt did it so it's not unheard of. oops found it upstream didnt see it before

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:42 PM

41. I'm allowed my opinion ... and ...

you are allowed yours.

My opinion is that this is nothing more than whining.

You are, as always, free to disagree with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:35 PM

19. I'm surprised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:07 PM

26. The creation of the

CFPB was always about politics and never economics. The CFPB allowed both parties to safely play oppositional two party politics. Wall Street doesn't want a CFBP with teeth. Both parties know that. There is nothing else to know. Until progressive people accept that corporate America owns the federal government, they will continue to either make apologies or continue to be disappointed by the actions of the President and his party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:31 PM

28. Yet further proof

 

that Obama is a great Democrat who is above criticism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:45 PM

31. No doubt more multi-dimensional chess ...

intended to lead Republicans into a false sense of security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:39 PM

38. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:47 PM

42. as much as i disagree with obama on many issues...

there is`t a whole lot he can do about this. in the old days both sides at least RESPECTED each others roll in government and had some RESPECT for the people who elected them. today the republicans have NO RESPECT for the office of the president and the man we elected. they have NO RESPECT for the welfare of the people who elected them.

until the people in this country wake the fuck up nothing will get done to improve our lot in life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:29 PM

44. Recess appointments made now would have been pretty much useless ...

they would only be valid until the end of the year.
Any recess appointments made 'this year' will expire when Congress begins The 113th Session the first week of January next year.
Also, anyone that is 'recess appointed' still has to be confirmed by The Senate in order for the appointment to made permanent.

There are way OVER A HUNDRED of Obama's nominees waiting to be confirmed.
The GOPs obstruction of Cordray's confirmation is nothing out of the ordinary.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:41 PM

45. So appoint them ALL

and lets get this nation moving forward again. How many votes to you believe it would be worth to the president if did this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:13 PM

55. So don't do what's right because it would only help a little?

Give me a break!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

47. "Liberal groups hoping... will be disappointed."

 

yep. that about says it when it comes to Obama - liberals HOPE he will do the right thing, but in the end, he does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 07:56 PM

51. ..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:44 PM

52. Pray tell; why not???

This does not make any sense politically, or from practical governance – either these appointees need to be in those positions or they don’t. If they do and the only reason they’re not is because of right wing obstructionism, then recess appoint them – what am I missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:12 PM

54. So another what he does and what we believe he thinks dichotomy grows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:02 AM

57. Another brilliant chess move!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:02 AM

58. Great, he'll sign one of the ten worst bills in history, during recess

but won't make recess appointments. Gee, I'm hoping he changes. A lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:46 AM

60. What's on that list of ten bills?

I'm curious as to whether this is hyperbole, or if corner case interpretations, of possible implementations, of a defense bill, are really being perceived that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:52 AM

63. Well, you aren't a terrorist, are you? So you've nothing to be concerned about.

Besides, Obama added a signing statement (which are suddenly great when he does it but were totally bogus when Bush the lesser did them) saying that his administration would never use the indefinite detainment clause. And since his administration is always, always going to be in office, there really is nothing to worry about. Even if the government feels like OWS could be classified as a terrorist organization and I'm sure they wouldn't (aren't you?), this administration, per Obama's signing statement, (even though signing statements hold no legal standing,) has said they won't indefinitely detain you without charging you, even if you are a terrorist working with the OWS, which isn't classified as a terrorist organization and certainly never would be, right?

So, you see, it was hyperbole. You and I have nothing to be concerned about.

Nothing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:16 AM

62. Obama Considering Cordray Recess Appointment as Soon as Tomorrow

President Barack Obama and his advisers are debating whether to install Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as soon as tomorrow, challenging Republican efforts to block appointments while Congress is away from the Capitol, according to two people familiar with the matter.

White House officials recognize that appointing Cordray would probably invite a court battle with congressional Republicans during an election year, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they aren’t authorized to speak publicly.

White House officials have communicated to Cordray that he should be ready to become acting consumer bureau head as soon as tomorrow, according to one person. A final decision on the recess appointment hasn’t been made, the other person said. Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to comment.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-04/obama-considering-cordray-recess-appointment-as-soon-as-tomorrow.html

Can someone clarify? It sounds like they moved it to Wednesday or Thursday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:25 AM

65. Yep. Looks like this thread needs to come down

False news.

And Epic Fail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 02:20 PM

81. Delete---wrong thread

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:05 AM

67. Obama to name new consumer watchdog

"The long-delayed start of a new consumer protection bureau took a major step forward Wednesday with an end run by the White House around Congressional Republicans who had been holding out for changes that consumer advocates say would have substantially weakened the agency.

President Barack Obama will use a recess appointment to name Richard Cordray as the nation's chief consumer watchdog despite strong Republican opposition, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer announced in a tweet.

The consumer agency was created after the 2008 financial industry meltdown, championed by Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, who had lobbied heavily for an new, independent financial regulator devoted solely to the protecting the interests of consumers. But her forceful attacks on the financial services industry made her appointment to head the new agency politically untenable.

snip

Obama's end run around the Senate is likely to cause an uproar among Republicans in Congress. Before leaving for its holiday break, the Senate imposed a schedule of "pro forma" legislative sessions to bock a recess appointment. The White House believes the schedule is a gimmick that doesn't interfere with Obama’s the power to make the short-term appointment. Cordray would serve for at least the next two years."

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9947364-obama-to-name-new-consumer-watchdog

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:00 PM

70. Get this guy in there asap

He will be an excellent first director for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

http://tinyurl.com/8262je5 - Obama Bypassing Senate To Appoint Richard Cordray consumer chief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:30 PM

71. Maybe Mr. O will negotiate with the republicans and instead of

appointing Mr. Cordray. he will have him jailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russspeakeasy (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:31 PM

76. Nope. He appointed him!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #76)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:34 PM

77. I was wrong. You were right. And good for him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:52 PM

80. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:55 PM

72. Sure he will. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:26 PM

79. Looks like a big FAIL.

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama also making recess appointments to the NLRB.

This thread filled with misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 9, 2012, 11:26 AM

85. The article was dated January 3. He did not make any appointments until January 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 12:47 PM

83. A big kick for clarity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2012, 10:07 PM

86. Are all of you Freeper brained? this post is history! He made the recess appointment. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nanabugg (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 03:56 AM

87. Thanks, so much, nanabugg. Perfect. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread