Obama Attempts a Recess Appointment While the Senate is Still In Session

Link

So President Obama used a recess appointment to appoint Richard Cordray to some horseshit board conceived by the Dodd-Frank clusterfuck that would undoubtedly cause more problems than it solves. This is a power granted to the President by the Constitution, provided the Senate is in recess. It was likely originally conceived to allow the President to fill vacancies in important positions back when the Senate recesses would often last six months, but has been used by a number of Presidents to weasel through people at the first sight of recess.

The problem, however, is that the Senate was not in recess.

Quote :

Seeking to block the White House from making the appointment, Republicans have set up so-called pro forma legislative sessions of Congress — sessions that are sometimes only seconds long and in which no business is conducted.

Washington Post explains further.

Quote :

The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting “pro forma” sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly “pro forma” session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”

So, President indisputably violates the separation of powers set forth by the Constitution. Discuss.

I will simply ask the question I asked when Bush threatened (and threatened and threatened) to do the same thing in 2007: If this is such a horrible HORRIBLE un-Democratic thing to do, why hasn't the law been changed to bar it?

What, is the Federal Government supposed to be run on the honor system?

Most governments are.

Freezer wrote:

I will simply ask the question I asked when Bush threatened (and threatened and threatened) to do the same thing in 2007: If this is such a horrible HORRIBLE un-Democratic thing to do, why hasn't the law been changed to bar it?

You know the answer: it's not such a horrible thing--or it isn't when the President uses recess appointments to do his duty or when Congress uses pro forma sessions to do theirs. Let me point some things out for you all to consider:

The first is that when the Congressional Democrats blocked Bush from making recess appointments, they weren't trying to abolish the UN or the judiciary. They had personal objections to those nominees. (I don't remember details about the others, but Bolton--at least-- was a total loon.) All Bush had to do was nominate somebody they could agree to, and the blocking would stop. It's not like there weren't sane conservatives around for Bush to choose from.

But now, Congressional Republicans are trying to stop Obama from appointing any people to those two agencies because they don't want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers, and they don't want the National Labor Relations Board enforcing regulations against unfair labor practices. They don't care about qualifications or politial leanings--one of the nominees to the NLRB was a Republican, and they still blocked him! They don't want these agencies to function. Period.

Why? The Republicans are doing this to please the big money boys, and to keep life from improving for the 99% for as long as Obama's in office. Senate Minority Leader McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Making sure that the 99% stay as miserable as they were at the end of the Bush Reign of Error is the best way they have of doing that. Congressional Republicans are violating the spirit of the law and they are neglecting their duty to care for the people of the country so they can regain the power they had deservedly lost.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

So, President indisputably violates the separation of powers set forth by the Constitution. Discuss.

Senate Republicans have made it quite clear that they are blocking these appointees because they want to nullify the law. Mitch McConnell stood up and said that he has no problem with the National Labor Relations Board or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau nominees, he has a problem with the laws creating those agencies. So rather than, you know, attempt to repeal the law they simply choose to be obstructionist jackasses and refuse to seat anyone, which as of January 1 ended the ability for the federal government to enforce labor laws in this country.

And as for precedent, there is plenty. Teddy Roosevelt made 160 recess appointments in the few moments between the close of one congressional session and the beginning of another. Harry Truman waited less than 48 hours after Congress adjourned to make a raft of recess appointments. And the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held in Kennedy v. Pryor in 2004 that the Constitution “does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause”. The Supreme Court did not take up the case, which means the Kennedy precedent holds force of law.

At best, the Supremes will throw up their hands and cite the "political question" doctrine as this is purely a spat between the Executive and Legislative branches.

In sum, your argument is full of shit. As usual.

House Republicans File Resolution Criticizing Recess Picks

Quote :

Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.) and 71 other House Republicans introduced a nonbinding resolution today voicing concern over President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of four administration nominees last week.

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

So... House Republicans are going to vote on condemning Obama for making recess appointments right after they get back from recess? Fabulous! And it's a nonbinding resolution, which basically means diddly-squat in terms practical consequences?

rachel wrote:

So... House Republicans are going to vote on condemning Obama for making recess appointments right after they get back from recess?

What's even funnier is that House Republicans (and note that the Republican leadership in the House are keeping their mouths shut, leaving some of the more nutty folks to "go rogue") are complaining about something they have no role in. Only the Senate has advise and consent power.