Excerpt:

In return for agreeing to confirm 54 of President Obama's nominees before the election break, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly got Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to keep the Senate in pro forma sessions so the president could not make a recess appointment of any other nominees, including Jack Lew, the president's pick for director of the Office of Management and Budget.

snip>

That's a fact, not an assumption...

it's a fact that the obama administration has been very slow in vetting and selecting nominees. the most likely explanation for last minute nomination, consistent with this pattern and not requiring any assumptions, is that one of the three board members' tenure was about to expire (also a fact, and there are supposed to be five) and the clock ran out.

And considering that the agencies are over stacked with Union Lackeys...

huh? sounds like you'd disapprove of the nominations regardless of who they were or how they were made. well, off to watch football.

~joshua

Read the latest FTPs?? :D

Good enough for me...

without someone to fill those jobs, the agencies couldn't function.

And considering that the agencies are over stacked with Union Lackeys, the fact that they couldn't function is probably the best news this country has had in a while.. :D

Michale

What I believe Joshua and others are saying is a belief in what checks and balances mean.

If you compare the two situations ...

171 and 29.

1) Bush. 171 recess appointments. Seems to be using recess appointments to circumvent Congress.

2) Obama. 29 recess appointments. Has whenever possible tried to work with Congress. 1st instance I can ever remember of Congress saying they won't confirm anyone. Isn't this in violation of a law they passed? How can you simply say you're not going to confirm anyone?

Checks and balances have the purpose of bringing the different powers of government together to work towards a compromise.

This is what I believe in and it seems others here believe in.

Republicans in Congress have said they have no intention of working together. Their idea of working together is "you give us 100%, we give you nothing". Or we take our ball and go home. This has been their theme ever since 2010.

This is obstructionism. It is abuse of checks and balances.

There's a big difference.
-David

This was about Obama Gibb's Slappin' the GOP upside the head..

well established by whom? just because i don't respond to every argument (and you make quite a few), doesn't necessarily mean i agree (nor that i disagree, for that matter). did you read the article? without someone to fill those jobs, the agencies couldn't function. and who says that there needs to be only one reason? at this point, anything that makes the bureaucracy a bit less dysfunctional will make the president look better next november. i would say smacking a few senators upside the head was just a pleasant bonus.

As has been well established, this incident had NOTHING to do with the appointments...

This was about Obama Gibb's Slappin' the GOP upside the head..

the postulate that the decision to recess-appoint labor board nominees was pre-meditated does not require any fewer assumptions than the postulate that the decision was not pre-meditated.

How does the fact that Obama submitted the names only 2 days before the Senate adjourned fit into your theory??

That's a fact, not an assumption..

Michale

If something is wrong, it's wrong whether it's done 1 time or a hundred times...

is it actually the case that only two suspects were waterboarded? and that they were fully confirmed to be terrorists (not just suspects) prior to that method being used? and that all other methods of interrogation were fully exhausted without success? yes, the number makes a difference. the context makes a difference. the rationale makes a difference. if, like bush in 2003, obama had recess-appointed 46 nominees instead of 4, that would definitely change my opinion on the move.

read more about the context of the appointments here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-is-obama-making-four-recess-appointments-rather-than-200/2011/08/25/gIQAuv67cP_blog.html

you're also misusing occam's razor. occam means that competing hypotheses may be judged based on which makes the fewest new assumptions. the postulate that the decision to recess-appoint labor board nominees was pre-meditated does not require any fewer assumptions than the postulate that the decision was not pre-meditated. i'm not saying your assumption is incorrect, but there isn't much logic in your logic.

have you been inside the president's brain? there are other feasible explanations. maybe he had initially intended to wait, then changed his mind. maybe he hadn't considered it at all and decided last-minute.

Considering that it has become painfully obvious that this whole sad and sordid incident was a re-election stunt and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the CFPB or the NLRB, employing Occam's Razor, the only logical conclusion is that Obama had no intention of submitting the NLRB members to the Senate for their consideration.

Of course, once the next Congressional Session ends, both Cordray and these NLRB members will be out of a job, as there is NO WAY the Senate will confirm these guys. Not after what the President did to the Senate...

You think the GOP is obstructionist now??? How do you think they are going to react to being Gibb's Slapped upside the head??

perhaps this isn't a question of numbers to you, but to me, the numbers are a necessary factor in determining the ethics of the situation.

So, since Bush only tortured 2 scumbags, ethically speaking, he's OK???

If something is wrong, it's wrong whether it's done 1 time or a hundred times...

Let's face it..

The ONLY reason Democrats are so pissed about the GOP being obstructionist is that the GOP does it so much better than the Democrats...

If Democrats were any good at being obstructionist, you can bet their numbers would be as high as the GOP's...

Michale

~joshua

"But because legally Congress was de jure in session..."

'Legally de jure' is redundant, but that's an improvement: 'legally de facto' is incoherent.

DF,

you're right, contentious is the wrong word. perhaps the right term would be constitutionally murky. the right of the president to declare a recess if congress hasn't IS in the constitution. not so much with the right of the president to decide that congress is already in de-facto recess even though they aren't in de-jure recess (thanks for the reminder, CW), and that the former matters more than the latter.

Obama had NO INTENTION of having the Senate really consider these appointments...

michale,

have you been inside the president's brain? there are other feasible explanations. maybe he had initially intended to wait, then changed his mind. maybe he hadn't considered it at all and decided last-minute.

perhaps this isn't a question of numbers to you, but to me, the numbers are a necessary factor in determining the ethics of the situation. an unprecedented number of nominees blocked, combined with the lowest rate of recess appointments in twenty years, means that this is an extraordinary situation which may justify extraordinary measures.

Except for one simple fact that was just revealed..

The NLRB members that Obama appointed were submitted to the Senate just TWO DAYS before the Senate adjourned..

Obama had NO INTENTION of having the Senate really consider these appointments...

It's clear that he was looking for something to stick it to the GOP to please his base...

what I would like you to acknowledge is the difference between the numbers 171 and 29.

"Now I want you to acknowledge that the Judge Advocate has made you aware of the possible consequences of accusing a Marine officer of a felony without proper evidence."
-Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

:D

Yes, I agree... The numbers are disparate...

But this isn't a question of numbers. I don't have a problem with Recess Appointments..

I DO, however, have a problem with WELL, THE SENATE ISN'T REALLY ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING ANYWAYS SO I'LL JUST DECLARE THEM IN RECESS AND DO WHAT I WANT Appointments...

And THAT is what this was...

in the case of these few recess appointments, nobody got tortured and nobody got hurt. somebody was hired to protect consumers from fraud, what a bleedin' tragedy! as someone said in comments on the last post, the ends don't always justify the means, but some ends justify some means. these rules are relative, not absolute - it's a matter of number and scope.

OK, so "some" ends justifies "some" means.

So, who decides what means and what ends??

Ya'all sure didn't like when Dubya was the "decider" of the means to the ends...

Has Obama been any better???

Hardly...

That's the problem here...

Michale

Is it time for a beer yet?

I heard "beer", then what??? :D

Michale

Do you really think that what Obama did was more contentious than try to declare the Senate in Recess and THEN make the appointments? Doesn't make sense to me.

This way he maybe gets the courts to rule on what he's done (probably against him) and exactly how he declares Congress in session.

this? marginally justified, and at worst, small potatoes.

~joshua

On the other hand, I want YOU to be outraged over the actions of President Obama..

michale,

i acknowledge that the president chose a needlessly contentious method of breaking tradition, but it followed naturally from the prior course of events. further, it was not an altogether unreasonable course of action. the reason the pro-forma sessions were instituted in the first place was to stop excessive recess appointments. excessive recess appointments were made in response to excessive delays. excessive delays were a response to controversial nominees, and so forth.

so yes, president obama broke a rule that senator obama supported. i agree, that's somewhat hypocritical. however, i am not outraged because the context was not the same. what I would like you to acknowledge is the difference between the numbers 171 and 29. the latter is obama's number of recess appointments, and is extremely low. the former is bush's, and is extremely high.

by analogy, let's say you put a pie out on the table and tell your kid that he shouldn't have any. even if he agrees with your decision in principle, starve him long enough and he'll feel justified in taking a slice, if not the whole thing. that's not the same as telling him he can't have any because he just pigged out on all his halloween candy. it's the same pie he's eating and the same rule he's breaking, but the context is different.

in the case of these few recess appointments, nobody got tortured and nobody got hurt. somebody was hired to protect consumers from fraud, what a bleedin' tragedy! as someone said in comments on the last post, the ends don't always justify the means, but some ends justify some means. these rules are relative, not absolute - it's a matter of number and scope.

~joshua

Obama only submitted the NLRB names TWO DAYS before Congress adjourned...

Apparently, Obama had absolutely NO INTENTION of having the Senate actually consider these nominees..

I wonder why that is....

Michale

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner...

Holy crap, REALLY!!!????

I swear I did not GOOGLE it.. I just read it and the first thing that occurred to me were the Blue Meanies!!

Damn, I'm good!!!!! :D

Michale

But the goal wasn't to be able to force these nominations..

The goal was to stick it to Republicans in a manner that would make the base all giddy...

Apparently, it worked.. :D

Michale

For some reason, I am thinking THE YELLOW SUBMARINE... :D

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner...

"Let us mix, Max. I've never admitted it before, but my cousin is the bluebird of happiness."
-Chief Blue Meanie

Heh.

-CW

LOL. I do at least enjoy our honesty here at CW.com.

There's likely many more. Obama failing to reinstitute Glass-Steagall? Watered down financial reform? Though I might be wrong, we might agree more than I think here.

Heheh. I'd agree. I have trouble seeing average folks getting worked up over it.

But if there's one thing conservatives do well, it's communicating with their base (and whipping them into a frenzy over what would normally go unnoticed). Ok, sorry. Cheap shot. I'll admit I'm both jealous and disgusted by their message machine :).

Is it time for a beer yet?
-David

There's many things that do outrage me about Democrats. This isn't one of them. It appears more that the checks and balances are broken.

Fair enough...

I am glad to see that you are outraged by some actions of the Democrats in general and Obama specifically..

How ironic that the actions that outrage you are the ones that I applaud.. :D

I think CW does get it right though when he says Obama should have first declared the Senate to be in recess.

I agree.. While it would have been unusual and cause the Right to howl (what doesn't these days?? :D), it had the benefit of not violating a precedent that the Obama Administration itself had established..

Michale

Sure. But the outrage doesn't seem to equal the act.

Are we walking into a several trillion dollar war based on falsified evidence?

Are we spending $700 billion dollars to bail out banks?

Are we authorizing illegal wiretapping of Americans?

No.

You do make a good point though that sometimes it's easier for Democrats to get away with things which are civil liberty affronts - like Obama's recent continuation of illegal detentions in the defense authorization bill. This does outrage me as it makes it possible for the government to detain anyone indefinitely by simply labeling them a terrorist.

There's many things that do outrage me about Democrats. This isn't one of them. It appears more that the checks and balances are broken.

I think CW does get it right though when he says Obama should have first declared the Senate to be in recess.

-David

"The Senate was not in session. They were simply 'Kineticly Un-Engaged'.."
-President Obama

Michale

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/202773-obama-takes-victory-lap

Michale

Seems to me that, if we are talking the Labor Board, and Obama is successfully sued over it, any decision that the board makes (which is likely to be Pro Union across the ahem... board) will all be rendered null and void...

Obama better hope he ain't sued, because, as I stated above, he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on...

It's not the Executive Branch's place to state whether or not the Legislative Branch is accomplishing anything..

Michale

Now THAT's funny!! :D

"Blueish? You don't look blueish."

For some reason, I am thinking THE YELLOW SUBMARINE... :D

Michale.....

"But because legally Congress was de facto in session..."

Upon reflection, I think that should read:

"But because legally Congress was de jure in session..."

I've been borderline flu-ish for the past two days, and my mind is a bit foggy. As you can probably tell from the disjointed nature of this column in the first place. But anyway, just wanted to say that...

[Because I made up the word "flu-ish," here's a quote for you Michale, see if you can guess where this is from:
"Blueish? You don't look blueish."
Heh.]

-CW

The way I heard it, if Obama appoints fed. judges and prosecutors, and then the SCOTUS decides against him, it would throw into jeopardy all the cases they have worked on since. There isn't the same magnitude of problem with the labor board or the CFPB. Don't know how valid this argument is, but there it is.

Haven't seen the rightie media, so I'm not sure -- how much are the GOPers howling about this? Or is it being lost in the NH primary fray?

This whole thing seems like "inside baseball" -- the type of thing us wonks (right and left) enjoy the heck out of arguing over a beer, but that the average Joe who doesn't pay much attention to politics is not even aware of. [Pause for someone to respond back to me: "...not even aware of, Asshole!" Heh. Heh heh. I crack myself up, sometimes...]

But then, like I said, I haven't been scanning the media to see what's being said all that much.

-CW

They are NOT called "WELL, THE SENATE ISN'T REALLY ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING ANYWAYS SO I'LL JUST DECLARE THEM IN RECESS AND DO WHAT I WANT Appointments".

Further, it's clear from the Congressional Record, that the Senate was accomplishing quite a bit in these Pro Forma sessions...

So, legally, morally and ethically, Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on..

Michale

Yes, both Parties at the same. Both Parties are obstructionist and look for ways to screw over the other Party at the expense of the country..

But asking me to get outraged at Obama for doing something because Congress refuses to uphold a law they voted for?

It's hard for me to get outraged over that. It's 4 appointments.

Yea, and Bush only tortured 2 terrorists...

It's not the number...

It's how they went about it...

If Obama can't do what he wants to thru the law and established precedence, then maybe he should consider that it's something he should not be doing..

Basically, you are saying that, in this case, The Ends Justifies The Means.

The Ends being that this CFPB agency MUST have a Director...

The Means being totally ignoring established precedent that the Obama Administration itself help establish...

I don't have to tell you how dangerous that sort of mind-set can be...

We have the War Powers Act...

We have Recess Appointments...

Where do you draw a line in the sand???

When do you say, "This far! No farther!!"??

It's a reasonable question...

Michale

I don't know how Bush's appointees fared. I think for the most part they got approved, but certainly some did not. I don't know how many did not. It is difficult to find out because many were withdrawn and replaced by others. Its been a mess since the '90s and I think the rules need to be changed.

It used to be that to filibuster you had to actually speak for hours and hours and hours and hours and ... Now, all you have to do is threaten. The cloture vote was to determine if you speakers were going to get cut off. Now the cloture is to determine if there is going to be a vote.

I'm not opposed to the filibuster, per se. But I think the option would not be used half as often if you made the sob's actually speak. If you made the speakers responsible for their actions ...

You say both parties are the same. Then, you say we should be outraged at Democrats.

I'm not sure which one you're going with here.

I do think we could come to some type of consensus over a speedy vote in the Senate.

But asking me to get outraged at Obama for doing something because Congress refuses to uphold a law they voted for?

It's hard for me to get outraged over that. It's 4 appointments.

-David

I understand completely where you are coming from. I really do.

You want me to be outraged because of all the obstructionism from Republicans..

I simply cannot muster up the desired outrage because of the FACT that Democrats did the exact same things when THEY were the minority...

On the other hand, I want YOU to be outraged over the actions of President Obama..

The difference is, Obama actions have never been done before by Republicans....

No Republican President has EVER ignored the War Powers act...

No Republican President has EVER made recess appointments when Congress was NOT in recess...

These are outrage-worthy events...

How do I know these are outrage-worthy events??

Because I know that every single Weigantian WOULD be outraged if a Republican President had done these things. In spades...

Michale

Up and Down votes WOULD be nice....

Democrats demand them when they are the majority..

Republicans demand them when THEY are the majority..

Nothing but partisan politics...

Ho Hum.....

New Supernatural is on tonight!! Kewl!!

Michale

Perhaps what is needed is something similar to the language in the 6th amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..."

The part that gets me is that it seems like there should be a "speedy" component to this confirmation thing.

Vote it up or down. If you're going to disagree, disagree. Not use a technicality to hold things up indefinitely. In this case, Republicans are making the case that they would never have voted anyone in - so it's not the candidates they object to, but the organization, or the law itself.

That is not "speedy". It's exactly the opposite. Permanently stuck. Permanently dysfunctional.

And I'd agree with this regardless of who was in the White House.

-David

Btw- Does anyone know what happened to the Bush appointees? Did they eventually get confirmed?

A point I am positive that everyone will make clear once we have a GOP President that does the same thing as Obama did..

:D

Michale

Let me answer your question with a question...

"How is getting intelligence from terrorists to prevent future terrorists attack a bad thing??"

Answer to BOTH questions:

It's not the act that's the problem. It's how the President goes about it that is the problem..

Michale

obama is adding another chapter to the conflict, but party doesn't seem to matter much, except to those of us who are on the outside.

While you are perfectly correct when you say that this is more of a BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT conflict rather than a PARTY conflict, it's obvious that (in the here and now) Dem Party Leaders are aiding and abetting...

It simply boggles the mind that the Majority Leader could allow these "gimmicks" to flourish, yet then two-facedly turn around and applaud when the President flagrantly ignores established precedent.

I am not sure if the previous examples you mentioned (Clinton & Bush) also included aiding and abetting from the Party Leaders...

Obama's claim is that the Senate wasn't really doing any work anyways. Even though that claim is demonstrably false...

Now consider that precedent..

Obama took it upon himself to determine that the Senate wasn't really accomplishing anything, so it's in "recess"...

What's to stop a future President from claiming, "Well, the Senate isn't accomplishing anything anyways, so let's call it a "recess" so I can by-pass the Senate and do whatever I want to do.."

This is a dangerous precedent of un-curtailed Executive power that could take us down a very slippery slope...

Michale

obama is adding another chapter to the conflict, but party doesn't seem to matter much, except to those of us who are on the outside.

Don't you mean "precociously"??? :D

Michale

"Dangerously irresponsible!??? Oh com'on Arthur!! That sounds almost pleasant!! She's a fucking lunatic!!"
-General Ira Potter, THE FINAL OPTION

:D

Michale

A very well-reasoned argument..

One you would NEVER make if it was a GOP president and his/her non "flagrant abuse of power"..

That's the point CW is trying to make..

If Democrats throw established precedent out the window in order to further their own partisan agenda, then they will have absolutely NO moral or ethical standing to complain when a future GOP president does the same thing...

It's like all the whining and complaining that Democrats and Republicans do about the filibuster...

They both bitch and moan about it when it's used against them. But neither Party wants to remove the option because they know THEY will use it when they are the minority..

It's partisan politics to further a partisan agenda..

Pure and simple...

Michale

This thing is going to go to the courts, probably end up with the Supremes and they will (hopefully) rule on the constitutionality of this type of appointment, this type of recess, and maybe the bit about the President forcing official recess when less than a quorum is physically within 100 miles of the capital building.

That is what this is all about. 4 appointments? With 90 Federal judgeships open and who knows how many federal PAS appointments out of the 1100 potential positions? He makes 4 recess appointments?

And this is supposed to be a flagrant abuse of power???? Anyone can dislike Obama for any number of reasons. His being stupid shouldn't be one of them.

In my opinion, he is forcing this constitutional "crisis" to get it resolved.

Everyone says that the process is broken, but no one is willing to even attempt to fix it. This will resolve at least one part of it, and it will be clear henceforth whether something like this will work in the future.

What's the problem? Whose ox got gored.

If these "Pro Forma" sessions are not to ya'alls liking, why on earth would ya'all blame Republicans???

Someone will correct me if I am wrong (I am sure :D) but doesn't the Senate Majority Leader sign off on all sessions of Congress??

If so, why is all this the Republicans fault??

It's also interesting to note that it was a DEMOCRAT (Wyden-OR) who established this "Pro Forma" sessions with the consent of President Obama, as Obama wanted to sign the latest legislation.

So, no matter how you slice it, these Pro Forma sessions were established by Democrats, because Democrats control the Senate..

And yet.. SOMEHOW, this is all the Republicans fault...

Like I said before, no matter what, everything is the Republicans fault. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.. :^/

Michale

Now THAT was funny!! :D

The only thing that's indisputable is that by his action, Obama has burned this particular bridge for Democrats for the future. When the positions are reversed again (as they almost certainly will be at some point), a Republican president is going to follow Obama's precedent, and ignore Democratic parliamentary shenanigans.

And THAT has been my point all along. Well, one of my points.

When we have a GOP President (as we will eventually) he or she will most assuredly follow this precedent established by Democrats.. (More on "precedence" later)..

And ya'all won't be able to say squat about it because ya'all accepted it when a Democrat did it..

There are legal precedents to consider,

And THERE is the crux of my other point..

The Obama Administration established the precedent, not once but TWICE... Two different Obama officials stated, in official testimony, that if Congress is "in session" every three days, they are not in recess...

So Obama is going against his own words...

AGAIN.....

"Oh, I'm sorry. Where's the library at, Asshole?"

And THAT was funny as hell too!!! :D

Also, I forgot to mention Obama's got bipartisan support in the Senate, as Scott Brown came out in favor of his move.

Speaking of precedence, you've just established one here. :D If just one single and solitary member of opposing Party joins the other party, the move can be labeled "bi partisan". :D

Michale tucks this little tidbit of info away for future use. :D

One question CW...

What's your thoughts on Title X Section 1066 of the Dodd-Frank legislation?

"SEC. 1066. INTERIM AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf

That seems to preclude Cordray having ANY power until such time as he is confirmed by the Senate.

That basically the SecTreas is in charge of the CFPB until such time as Cordray is approved by the Senate.

And, since Democrats have totally done away with the "established precedence" argument.......

Well that's not an argument that can be used anymore.

Michale

http://library.adoption.com/articles/no-recess-policies-being-implemented-in-u.s.-school-districts.html

Also, I forgot to mention Obama's got bipartisan support in the Senate, as Scott Brown came out in favor of his move.

More discussion fodder...

-CW