Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats agree to block Obama nominees by holding pro-forma sessions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:04 AM
Original message
Democrats agree to block Obama nominees by holding pro-forma sessions
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 09:07 AM by Mass
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/democrats-agree-bloc... /

Democrats agree to block Obama nominees
In a stunning alliance between Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, Senate Democratic leadership quietly agreed Wednesday evening to block President Barack Obama from making recess appointments while senators return home to campaign for midterm elections, according to a Congressional newspaper.

The move involves Senate leadership holding "pro-forma" sessions of the Senate every Monday and Friday to prevent Obama from filling vacant senior federal positions. By holding sessions every few days, Obama can't slip his nominees through.

Recess appointments are valid through the end of a Congressional session, and typically must be reconfirmed in the next calendar year. They're often used to appoint nominees that have been held up by the Senate. President George W. Bush nominated UN ambassador John Bolton through a recess appointment in 2005; Bolton had previously made comments saying the UN didn't exist, and later resigned when it became clear he couldn't be confirmed.

The Senate Democratic-Republican agreement was first reported by Alexander Bolton in The Hill.

Senate Democrats will schedule pro-forma sessions every week for the next six weeks, Bolton said.


So, the Senate does nothing and then holds pro-forma sessions? This is absolutely ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why? It makes no sense poltitically at all...??
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. For the same reason they refused to hold a vote that was politically good for them.
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 09:13 AM by Mass
They are stupid.
If they think it will prevent the GOP to attack them, they are fools.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/09/30/m... /
A national GOP group has sent out press releases targeting Democrats in key races, including Representative Niki Tsongas of Lowell, contending they put their own interests over those of taxpayers by avoiding a vote that could be perceived as a tax increase on the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. The Senate DID vote on tax cuts.

It was filibustered by Republicans minus one and plus three Democrats and an Independant.


It's the House that did not vote because the Conservative majority planned to push through tax cuts for all with the biggest percentage cut going to the investor class. Under those circumstances, not voting was the only thing they could do. You know the Republicans would have no problem getting enough Conservative Democrats to help them pass *that* House bill.

And another tax cut -- I have experienced nine federal income tax cuts with only one increase in my career -- is the last thing this country can afford. Unless you agree with the Republican goal of bankrupting gov't.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Please point to the vote.
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 02:29 PM by Mass
Here is the list of votes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/v...

Given that Reid said there would be no vote, I would be surprised if there was one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think that Republicans had the ability to force the issue.
They could keep the Senate from adjourning for the break. Vitter and Burr are the only ones running in even marginally competitive races, so it wouldn't hurt them. Half a dozen Democrats need to get back to their states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Maybe that's what the WH wanted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Yes, the WH wanted the Senate to stop the President from making recess appointments
The makes perfect sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:29 AM
Original message
There will always be people on DU who will blame Obama when all evidence says otherwise. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. It makes as much sense as Senate Democrats doing it on their own initiative.
It's not likely that it was done against the express wishes of the White House. There's probably some extortion going on with the Republicans about what would happen if any recess appointments were made and the Dems decided to cave. If the Senate Dems do it, rather than the President not making any appointments, it looks slightly less wimpy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Any Senate Dem that would make such a bargin
is a complete idiot. If they are watching the polls they know they are in a slightly better position than they were a few weeks ago. The Republicans have no hand in this. Also, if there is some extortion going at this very minute. To the point that Senate Dems would side with Republicans on such an issues as this. Than this should show all the "Obama isn't a man" crowd something. That no it is not as easy as snapping your fingers and it shall be done. Last part of this post not really directed towards you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Given their behavior the past two years, should we credit the Senate Dems for
possessing much in the way of political savvy or spine when it comes to dealing with threats? Seems like they back down every time. Looks like we'll probably have more than 50 seats in November but since they acted like wimps when we had 60, they've convinced themselves they're losing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. Good god. The Senate does something but it's Obama's fault they did it.
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 12:19 PM by DevonRex
I literally gasped at the level of detestation you have to hold for this man in order to come up with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. No... The WH wanted Senate Democrats to get back home to campaign.
Probably assuming that the future ability to actually confirm appointees is more important than the short term ability to recess-appoint a handful.

Not to mention the fact that recess appointments aren't exactly an ideal thing to see in the papers a couple weeks out from an election.

So yes... it makes perfect sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Not much point in making recess appointments this close to the end of a Congress, anyway. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. Why didn't the WH just promise to not make any recess appointments until
after the election? Wouldn't that be a lot easier for everyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Seems like that would be the case...
...but it would require Republicans to trust the WH.

Not a whole bunch of that going around these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. The Republicans have to say in the matter
They are in the minority, and do not set the Senate schedule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Sorry... that's simply not true.
Boy do I wish it was... but LOTS of Senate process requires unanimous consent. They don't drive the bus... but they certainly "have a say in the matter".

I think that Democrats were pretty certain that this was in their best interests. Why make the election about recess appointments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. That's a really good question. Maybe because Turtle Face McConnell wouldn't
get any smug points from doing things that way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Oh wait..someone did manage to blame Obama.
Your statement is one of the many stupid things I've heard on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. Yes, didn't take long. This place is disgusting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. Did you read the follow-up a few posts below it?
Literally made me gasp at how much the poster must hate Obama to write that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. Actually, I don't hate Obama at all. I find it both infantile and telling that
you assume that other poster's remarks are motivated by their emotional feelings about a politician rather than about how that person does his/her job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. The admin of this board needs take a closer look at some members
Dead serious. Your post sums up what 90% of the anti-Obama crowd on this board will parrot. You are so far gone with your dislike of this president that you have slipped over the edge. It is more silly, stupid and embarrassing that it is sad. I say this because supposedly most of you are over 18, supposedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Wow. You're the one over the edge. All I was suggesting is that this might have
happened with the President's tacit consent and you conflate it into an anti-Obama attack. Chill the fuck out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. No, that's not all you were suggesting, as you showed in one reply above.
Seriously, you'll blame the man for ANYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. If you think that someone is violating DU rules, you should alert the moderators
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. That makes no logical sense. If the WH didn't want to appoint recess positions, all they have..
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 10:09 AM by phleshdef
... to do is just not make any appointments during the recess. You are kidding yourself if you think the general public pays enough attention to this to the extent that the WH feels it needs to give itself some fake political cover to not make any appointments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. This way, the Senate Dems get cussed at for a day. The other way, some folks
will say, "Why hasn't the President appointed X?" every damned day for the next month. Or it could be that some Republicans cut a deal with some Democrats because they're afraid the President might make a last-minute appointment that could affect the election. You never know, with the Senate--it's worse than a friggin' Wagnerian opera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. Nobody's buying your "innocent" explanation. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fruittree Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. Oh of course!!
How could this be anyone but Obama's fault??!! (meant sarcastically)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. Another DUer suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newfie11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. SHIT! I guess it makes no difference who we vote for.
This country has been bought out by lobbyists and big business. Screw em all.

Wake up America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yup
Congress has been no better, really, since the DEMS took over in 2007. They continue to disappoint on so many levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Agreed and it's these people Obama is fighting against.
We try to get things done and these people back pedal us. Obama would never win in this environment which means we would never win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. Note that this is the Senate. And it's the Senate who screwed up healthcare. But Obama gets the
blame every single time. No matter what. We ought to be concentrating on who we nominate for the Senate instead of blaming Obama for everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
27. Um, friend? It's "Democratic". With an "ic"
Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
29. It's Democratic and Republican't!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. Ah, would you be here to suppress the vote by chance?
I mean, you're saying there's no difference between them. If that's true, why vote?

And just a little hint. We say "DemocratIC" Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. Senators don't want to give up their ability to approve or reject nominees
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm surprised people arent' blaming Obama. He of course can control the Senate...right?!
This is the shitheads Obama is up against. If people wonder why Obama may not meet their expectations---it's because of clowns like this. With Dems like these who needs Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. Oh, just look up thread. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. It appears they have taken their brains out and are playing with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
14. You see the crap Obama has to deal with?????
Fuck them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
16. They allowed Bush to recess appoint a Swift Liar enabler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
22. If you read the Hill article, you will understand why they agreed to this 'deal.'
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had threatened to send Obamas most controversial nominees back to the president if Democrats did not agree to schedule pro-forma sessions, according to a senior GOP aide.

Senate rules give McConnell this power.

That would have forced the president to resubmit the nominees to the Senate and Democrats to start their confirmation processes (including hearings) all over again.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/121775-senate-blocks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. I'm sure McConnell double pinky sweared to not do it
I guarantee the republicans will still send those nominations back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. It makes no difference. He will have to do that in January anyway.
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 12:35 PM by Mass
Does anybody think that the GOP will confirm any of them before the end of this congress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
46. That makes no sense. If the Pukes do that, so what? It makes them look like idiots.
And I don't recall any of these deals being done before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denimgirly Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
42. I read the article and i understand..But WAIT..Whats the diff. between Both Parties again?
Its getting harder to tell the difference between both parties since they are almost interchangeable it seems.
I read why they did this but its pretty weak when you think about it.

Obama has to get tough and start making full out threats because it is clear none of congress fears nor respects him at all. They all seem to know that they can do whatever they want and Obama will roll over. This is quit annoying. He needs to get tough because if not this is going to tbe the exact same thing for the next two years.

At their core democrats are CLEARLY weak and so they desperately need a strong leader that will whip them into shape and go with a baseball bat and break republican bones when THEY get out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
47. *&*#@&#$@((&& !!!
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 12:56 PM by AtomicKitten
:mad: x a gazillion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
51. It is galling that people on DU blame the President for not moving things while the "Democrats"
in the Senate stab him in the back. Bullshit. Harry Reid is gutless. He even sounds like a goddam wimp. What were the Senate Democrats thinking when they named that wimp "leader"? As I go through the names, I can't find many leaders except Boxer, Feingold and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
53. Hey, it worked out great last summer, when they stayed in session to help the unemployed.
Edited on Thu Sep-30-10 02:47 PM by Zenlitened
They were RELENTLESS in demanding that the Senate not adjourn until an unemployment benefits extension had passed. And no "pro forma" stuff, either. Democrats stood up and Got the Job Done.

Um, wait...

:crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 10th 2014, 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC