GhostofSparta Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I didn't see this posted yet (amazingly), but maybe I just missed it while searching. If so, please merge mods. http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/99229/cordrays-recess-appointment-sure-doesnt-look-constitutional-me Cordray's Recess Appointment Sure Doesn't Look Constitutional To Me by Timothy Noah I'm no lawyer, but: As someone who strongly supported a recess appointment for Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I'm confused as to why President Obama chose to act today. Had he appointed Cordray yesterday, during a brief period when the Senate was technically in recess, the action would have been supported by precedent. Apparently, though, that appointment would have lasted only through 2012. By appointing Cordray today, Obama can keep him at CFPB through 2013. The trouble is that the Senate isn't in recess. For complicated reasons the Republicans have the ability to prevent the Senate from going into recess, and they have done so in order to maximize the difficulty of Obama making recess appointments. The White House maintains that keeping the Senate in pro forma session is a stupid gimmick, which is certainly true. It further maintains that because it is a stupid gimmick, that gives the president the right to act as though the Senate were in recess. That's the part I have trouble following. Read it all at the link. So I can already see the road this thread will go down, but I'm hoping to get an answer from those who know more about this: Is this move Constitutional? And if it isn't, does this set a bad precedent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Presidents have done this for decades. The difference between a recess appointment and a confirmed appointment is the length of time. For recess appointments, I think it's just one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It may or may not be Constitutional. We will never know because no court will take up the case. And it's nothing different than every other President has done before. And the reaction of the GOP is identical to the reaction from every other minority party when it happened before. Meet the new boss.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 everybody says they won't do it....until they do it. Then they say "Well, at this point in the last guys 1st term, he had triple the number of these.....or vacation days....or whatever. Exactly what Kilmer said...Meet the new boss..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University would know. I know that Bush did it all the time. Oh, and vacation. And lie. And say dumb stuff like "Bring 'em on!". (off soapbox now). I'm sure either Ed or Rachel or Lawrence will bring this up tonight on MSNBC. Can't wait! HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It may or may not be Constitutional, but either way I don't care for this kind of crap. If you can't get the Senate's consent, move on to another nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Technically, I believe the GOP is right in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's Constitutional and it's there because of this very reason: the Senate opposition members are blocking everything and government would be at a standstill without recess appointments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's Constitutional and it's there because of this very reason: the Senate opposition members are blocking everything and government would be at a standstill without recess appointments. Which is the same excuse every POTUS uses when they make these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I keep reading that "this is the same thing everybody does". But is it? Anybody know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Obama has appeared to have found his balls . . . . . . finally. Great news. Too bad it took almost 4 years of unprecedented obstructionism for him to start. I love how mad this appointment has made the GOP. Honestly, they can go **** themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's Constitutional and it's there because of this very reason: the Senate opposition members are blocking everything and government would be at a standstill without recess appointments. If things are disagreeable then they are supposed to be at a standstill. It is just that neither party likes it when they are the ones in power being blocked by the minority party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Recess appointments are constitutional though.The disagreement was over whether the senate was technically in recess, which the constitution says nothing about and thus courts side with the president on this. Actually, amateur SC Justice, here, but I would think that, if the question is "is the Senate in recess?", then the answer is "Does the Senate say it's in recess?" Far as I'm aware, the Constitution specifies that each house of Congress writes it's own rules. (Now, granted, the flip side of that is "if the Senate isn't in recess, then call a vote. Oh, you mean you can't call a vote, because you're the only person in town? Well, that kind of sounds like a recess, to me.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Which is the same excuse every POTUS uses when they make these. Recess appointments are constitutional though. The disagreement was over whether the senate was technically in recess, which the constitution says nothing about and thus courts side with the president on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It may or may not be Constitutional, but either way I don't care for this kind of crap. If you can't get the Senate's consent, move on to another nominee. I would agree with you . . . . but there is one problem. You can't move on to another nominee when the opposing party is set on rejecting ANY nominee not just a particular nominee. "Republicans have said they are not opposing a particular nominee but rather any nominee, whoever it may be. " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/us/politics/20nominate.html?pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 If things are disagreeable then they are supposed to be at a standstill. It is just that neither party likes it when they are the ones in power being blocked by the minority party. Actually, I don't have a problem with it. Heck, I think that the filibuster is an important part of our system. I would hate to see things change to take away the power of a minority to obstruct something, if they really, passionately, object to it. I have a problem with the fake filibuster. I have a problem with a party filibustering everything. I really have a problem with a party filibustering everything, and then claiming that they aren't doing it. But I absolutely think that the filibuster ought to be a part of the tool box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I don't have a problem with the Recess appointment of the 1 guy. The other three that were only put forth on December 15th should not have been done so soon. Thats just skipping the entire system. On the radio they said the Presidents advisors said the Congress had to be out of session for 3 days, they were out for 1. If you can't follow your own rules there is nothing much else to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Kilmer is right - recess appointments are constitutional, but no one knows if this exact move is constitutional or not, and we may never find out. These things are designed to work themselves out in the political arena, not in the courts. If the GOP wants to take a stand on this, they can try in the court of public opinion. But it won't be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 If the GOP stays quiet, Obama gets to hire his guy. If the GOP complains, Obama gets to say that the GOP is against protecting consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 It may or may not be Constitutional. We will never know because no court will take up the case. If no court takes up the case, that makes it Constitutional. A court in refusing to look a the case would essentially be saying this is constitutional (i.e. out of their purvue, which is the Constitution). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I would agree with you . . . . but there is one problem. You can't move on to another nominee when the opposing party is set on rejecting ANY nominee not just a particular nominee. "Republicans have said they are not opposing a particular nominee but rather any nominee, whoever it may be. " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/us/politics/20nominate.html?pagewanted=all The Reps took back over the Senate already? there is supposedly yet another issue with this action violating actual law as well. Yoo's amusing take http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287264/richard-cordray-use-and-abuse-executive-power-john-yoo http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/playing-politics-with-the-constitution-and-the-law/ Did Obama have the authority to make the Cordray and the NLRB appointments, since the Senate is technically not in recess? And will the president’s shift from bipartisan conciliator to partisan agitator pay off? My response: All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The Reps took back over the Senate already? The reps forgot how to filibuster everything in the world already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Looks like Larry and TWA are the only ones identifying the problem in this thread. Despite what many posters are attributing to previous Presidents, no President has made recess appointments when the Senate has not been in recess. Now the Senate in recess may be a sham (invented by the Democrats during Bush's Presidency I might add) but that doesn't matter. Like the article stated, this essentially means any President can make a recess appointment during any weekend under this precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The reps forgot how to filibuster everything in the world already? Don't recall them filibustering him, don't even think he was nominated that long ago I admit I haven't kept up with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Here's some Constitutional text on the powers of the Executive (found in Article II): The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.It seems to me the problem here is that the Senate is saying, "We can take away this Constitutional power of the President by going into recess without calling it "recess"." And actually, it's not going into recess because the House is forcing the Senate to stay in session. So we have a law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, which calls for a head of the consumer protection agency, yet instead of using the legislative power (funding, repeal of the law, modification of the law); Congress is attempting to use some technicality to prevent the position from being filled. Personally, it seems to me that Congress would be more likely to get smacked around by the Courts for stepping on the Presidential power. Interesting question tho. I doubt the R's have the stones for this case though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.