Huntsman. He's not crazy and wouldn't attempt to wholesale ruin the US. He's rightwing enough to skim some votes off of the bubbling cesspit that is the Tea Party, but centrist enough to support civil liberties and not openly preach hate.
And he is big into patent reform. I guess we are going Republican hipster on this, seeing as Huntsman is not doing so hot in the polls.
Good, They have been whiny bitches about the Consumer protection agency for way to long. Not applying a leader to the agency because they didn't stop it from being created is super bitchy.
This same permanent session strategy has been in use since Reid became majority leader. Obama himself supported this strategy as a senator.
The president is not a dictator.
Agreed, but he is the president, with all powers granted to the president by the constitution.
Exactly, but he can't do a recess appointment when the Senate is not in recess.
There is a secondary problem. The text of the law that created this new department States the director only gains the power to do things after being confirmed by the Senate. So, does a recess appointment even work in this case?
Wow, he even recess appointed three people to the NLRB that were only sent to the Senate a few weeks ago with no filibuster or anything!
The Senate gets to make their own rules, the President does not get to decide when the Senate is in recess. What's next, will every weekend count as a recess?
This same permanent session strategy has been in use since Reid became majority leader. Obama himself supported this strategy as a senator.
The president is not a dictator.
Agreed, but he is the president, with all powers granted to the president by the constitution.
Exactly, but he can't do a recess appointment when the Senate is not in recess.
There is a secondary problem. The text of the law that created this new department States the director only gains the power to do things after being confirmed by the Senate. So, does a recess appointment even work in this case?
I believe (and so do the WH lawyers) that the Senate was in recess, if the Senate disagrees they can take him to court. With the Senators out of town it would be hard to argue in a court of law that the Senate wasn't in recess.
I'm not aware of the details on the later, but the reason the recess appointment was done now was because one of the current member's term expired, leaving them without a quorum to function. This is a textbook case for a recess appointment. Inaction by the Senate can't result in a duly authorized part of the government from functioning.
In the case of the NLRB there was no inaction by the Senate, the White House only gave the names over to the Senate three weeks ago. If you want to make a claim of inaction it would fall on the White House.
Recess appointments last until the end of the next session, right? What is there to stop Congress from declaring a new session every day to effectively destroy the executive branch's recess appointment power?
Recess appointments last until the end of the next session, right? What is there to stop Congress from declaring a new session every day to effectively destroy the executive branch's recess appointment power?
Sessions officially last for a year, although there may be recesses during the middle of those sessions.
1) Recess appointment does not work for the CFPB. The law, as written, specifically states that the director does not gain any power until "confirmed by the Senate". Weird huh?
2) The NLRB nominations were sent to the Senate on Dec 15. Nothing was done with them yet in part because of the December break yet they have been given recess appointments? WTF? Is this going to be the new SOP? Send your nominations in right before a scheduled break and then shove them through via a recess appointment?
3) Under the Constitution the Senate gets to set its own rules. It is up to them to define what a recess is not the executive branch. Just as they have made a mockery of the filibuster they have also made a mockery of the Senate rules with this "pro forma" session crap.
4) Under the Constitution neither chamber can adjourn for longer than three days without the consent of the other.
5) In 2010, the Obama administration expressed its agreement with the three-day rule:
Mr. Obama’s own top constitutional lawyers affirmed that view in 2010 in another case involving recess appointments. Asked what the standard was for making recess appointments, then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the justices the administration agreed with the three-day rule.
“The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days,” Mr. Katyal said.
6) The NLRB appointments should piss everyone off.
I'm not pissed off, quite simply, because it shows Obama isn't simply bending over backwards to make those ass-tards in the Republican party happy. He's showing some backbone and is actually doing things rather than yet again trying to work with them and getting blasted.
I wish it were working differently, but I have lost all faith in Congress to act like a group of responsible adults, so I've got more important things to be pissed off about.
I'm not pissed off, quite simply, because it shows Obama isn't simply bending over backwards to make those ass-tards in the Republican party happy. He's showing some backbone and is actually doing things rather than yet again trying to work with them and getting blasted.
I wish it were working differently, but I have lost all faith in Congress to act like a group of responsible adults, so I've got more important things to be pissed off about.
In the interest of fairness, wouldn't you be upset by a Republican president furthering a primitive social agenda using the same tactics?
I'm not pissed off, quite simply, because it shows Obama isn't simply bending over backwards to make those ass-tards in the Republican party happy. He's showing some backbone and is actually doing things rather than yet again trying to work with them and getting blasted.
I wish it were working differently, but I have lost all faith in Congress to act like a group of responsible adults, so I've got more important things to be pissed off about.
In the interest of fairness, wouldn't you be upset by a Republican president furthering a primitive social agenda using the same tactics?
I don't know if I would be or not, because that's not happening and your question is devoid of the details I would need to make that sort of a judgment call.
If ALL of the things were opposite (Democrats were obstructing well thought-out Republican bills and were using the media to blast the President's every move, no matter how well-intentioned) then I probably wouldn't be pissed off at the President for doing something like this.
What I don't get is why the President and Democrats in the Senate didn't first do the whole "every nominee deserves a fair up-or-down vote" thing like the Republicans did during Bush 2's presidency... At least play up that stuff, hoist the GOP on its own petard, and then do the recess appointments, if necessary.
Aren't you just saying that the ends justify the means?
I am not saying that, because it is a very vague statement and I try not to make very vague and generalist statements.
I'm simply saying exactly what I said already: I don't care about this particular means, because I am pissed off at Congress in general right now and don't really care that they might feel circumvented in this particular instance.
3) Under the Constitution the Senate gets to set its own rules. It is up to them to define what a recess is not the executive branch. Just as they have made a mockery of the filibuster they have also made a mockery of the Senate rules with this "pro forma" session crap.
4) Under the Constitution neither chamber can adjourn for longer than three days without the consent of the other.
5) In 2010, the Obama administration expressed its agreement with the three-day rule:
Mr. Obama’s own top constitutional lawyers affirmed that view in 2010 in another case involving recess appointments. Asked what the standard was for making recess appointments, then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the justices the administration agreed with the three-day rule.
“The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days,” Mr. Katyal said.
6) The NLRB appointments should piss everyone off.
3) Senate rules can't/don't override constitutional law. Just as the Senate has the right to confirm, the president has the right to appoint when the Senate is in recess. Since we are talking about a constitutional power, the courts will decide what's a recess for the purposes of this power.
4) Irrelevant. The Senate simply has to be in recess not adjourned.
5) Irrelevant. Expressing opinion is not caselaw.
6) Disagree. A broken Senate is what should piss everyone off.
Comments
The only reason the GOP is bitching is because Obama did it. They're being obstructionist and just saying 'no' because they can, not because there is any real objection to Cordray's record OTHER THAN the possibility he might actually do the job too well and bring actions against companies screwing the American consumer.
On another note, Bachmann clearly has not mastered the English language, and does not think about what she says before she says it.
The president is not a dictator.
There is a secondary problem. The text of the law that created this new department States the director only gains the power to do things after being confirmed by the Senate. So, does a recess appointment even work in this case?
The Senate gets to make their own rules, the President does not get to decide when the Senate is in recess. What's next, will every weekend count as a recess?
I'm not aware of the details on the later, but the reason the recess appointment was done now was because one of the current member's term expired, leaving them without a quorum to function. This is a textbook case for a recess appointment. Inaction by the Senate can't result in a duly authorized part of the government from functioning.
Recess appointments last until the end of the next session, right? What is there to stop Congress from declaring a new session every day to effectively destroy the executive branch's recess appointment power?
1) Recess appointment does not work for the CFPB. The law, as written, specifically states that the director does not gain any power until "confirmed by the Senate". Weird huh?
2) The NLRB nominations were sent to the Senate on Dec 15. Nothing was done with them yet in part because of the December break yet they have been given recess appointments? WTF? Is this going to be the new SOP? Send your nominations in right before a scheduled break and then shove them through via a recess appointment?
3) Under the Constitution the Senate gets to set its own rules. It is up to them to define what a recess is not the executive branch. Just as they have made a mockery of the filibuster they have also made a mockery of the Senate rules with this "pro forma" session crap.
4) Under the Constitution neither chamber can adjourn for longer than three days without the consent of the other.
5) In 2010, the Obama administration expressed its agreement with the three-day rule: 6) The NLRB appointments should piss everyone off.
I wish it were working differently, but I have lost all faith in Congress to act like a group of responsible adults, so I've got more important things to be pissed off about.
If ALL of the things were opposite (Democrats were obstructing well thought-out Republican bills and were using the media to blast the President's every move, no matter how well-intentioned) then I probably wouldn't be pissed off at the President for doing something like this.
I'm simply saying exactly what I said already: I don't care about this particular means, because I am pissed off at Congress in general right now and don't really care that they might feel circumvented in this particular instance.
4) Irrelevant. The Senate simply has to be in recess not adjourned.
5) Irrelevant. Expressing opinion is not caselaw.
6) Disagree. A broken Senate is what should piss everyone off.