Pitting Senate Republicans for trying to shut down the Consumer Protection Agency

Using a recess appointment, Obama names former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the agency that was created after the debacle of financial meltdowns in 2008.

Expectedly, conservatives are already pissing and moaning.

You mean like how Bush appointed Bolton as a UN Ambassador during a Congressional recess? At least man up and acknowledge that your side has done it too. I can be perfectly honest and say I love this appointment because I support Obama and the Consumer Protection Agency. The problem I had with Bolton wasn’t as much about the recess appointment as it was the man himself, who once said the UN building could have like 10 floors removed from it and not make a difference. Such an idiot should not be a diplomat. If any conservatives respond, I hope they will be equally honest and attack not the recess appointment process, but just admit that they don’t want consumers protected

And its not like there hasn’t been sufficient vetting. The guy was nominated in July, and before him, Elizabeth Warren was nominated until the Republicans blocked her for so long she withdrew her candidacy. And all this for an agency that was created in fucking 2010 after passing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And that was in response to the whole financial system almost shutting down due to piss poor management, corruption, and incompetence that plunged the world into a recession. So fuck you, Senate Republicans, for blocking something that millions of people wanted years ago, was passed, and 39 of you held up for the benefit of your corporate masters.

The crazy thing is, its not like the Republicans are simply letting the agency work without their idea of a super-liberal in charge directing it. As the article states, part of the stipulation was that the agency cannot actually start creating rules and enforcing them UNTIL they get a director, so by blocking the nominations of Warren and Cordray, they were effectively shutting down the agency. Thanks to the recess appointment, Cordray will be able to have an entire year to implement consumer protections before the next president and next congress has to reconsider the nomination.

And I love this last part of the article:

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but it doesn’t surprise me that Republicans (it says the Senate but I’m willing to bet it was just Republicans) tried to pull some legal trick out of their ass. Basically, in their fantasy world, they’d strip the power of the president to make recess appointments by using this “pro forma” tactic. That’s it. No debate, no vote, just that they think they can remove a power of the president using a technicality so they’re going to do it. I wonder how many Democratic Senators have ever tried that trick, and if it worked. Given the depth of insanity Republicans have sunk to, I’m willing to bet that this tactic either hasn’t been tried before, or only by Republicans.

So fuck you, Senate Republicans. I’m glad the Consumer Protection Agency is now up and running.

The head of the CPA is an unaccountable czar? Who knew?

Barack Obama? Using a recess appointment?!!

I’m…pleasantly surprised.

So as always, in other words…

You’re fine with it if Obama does it and Republicans are stupid for making him have to do it.

You’re against it if Bush did it and Democrats are not stupid for making him have to do it.

Take your boo-hoo hypocritical towel and shove it up your ass.

Shut your mouth, fringe. Adults are talking.

That said, this is awesome. Good job Obama.

Yeah no surprise to see you here co-signing some more faux liberal outrage, Gonz… sorry… lobohan.

I’m a genuine liberal and I genuinely was outraged that the Repubs were attempting to destroy the CPA by keeping it from having its first head.

Do you think that *faux *means Vietnamese soup?

I don’t have a desire to debate the rest of it but technically you are completely wrong here. What the Senate Republicans were trying to do, utilizing the arcane rules of the Senate, was keep the Senate in perpetual session. A recess appointment can only happen during a legislative recess, so the Senate Republicans were not trying to “destroy the power of recess appointments” but instead to prevent a recess from happening.

It’s not the same thing, that it might have the same practical effect is irrelevant when talking about technical legal matters in which your outrage is entirely based on the technicalities.

As others have mentioned, it is not a new thing for the Senate to continue “pro forma” sessions to deny a President the ability to make recess appointments. Nor is finding a way around that procedural tactic a new thing.

President Obama’s approach here is new, and it’s just as constitutional (as far as I can tell) as the more traditional loop hole to get by a pro forma session. Obama is basically saying “the Constitution doesn’t explicitly define a recess, so I can appoint Cordray today because the Congress is in recess.”

Since the issue doesn’t appear to be “settled” constitutional law, Obama is definitely correct that at least for now, there is no formal definition of when Congress is in recess. One could even argue for the President in court that when almost all the lawmakers are absent from Washington and vacationing, it would constitute a common law understanding of a what constitutes a legislative recess.

The older loop hole for getting by such a process was utilized by Teddy Roosevelt in 1903. The 20th Amendment to our Constitution states that Congress must start a legislative session on Jan. 3rd, the legality of that means that by the extensions of logic, any ongoing legislative session would have to end right before then and a new one must begin at noon on the 1/3. In 1903 Roosevelt literally made almost 200 appointments in the seconds between the Senate adjourning its previous session and the Senate President striking the gavel to indicate a new session had started.

President Obama opted not to avail himself of the more traditional loophole. From what I can see both loopholes are essentially legally on similar footing as both are untested and rely on common sense interpretations.

The OP said he didn’t have a problem with recess appointments in and of themselves. He just had a problem with Bolton, who happened to be a dick.

Frankly, if the Republican congressfolk don’t like the fact that Obama can appoint during a recess, they are in the BEST. FRICKING. POSITION. to amend the law.

And also when did they stop beating their wives too? That was just poorly phrased or horribly leading. Some Republicans may have other reasons why they’re against it like: how efficient has it been to have this branch especially compared to how much money it costs? Would stricter legislation and reprocussions instead of oversight be a better option? Etc. I’m not saying I agree with it, but I also haven’t seen much info on how the CPA has performed since instituted.

Also:"*This is a very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “Circumventing the Senate and tossing out decades of precedent to appoint an unaccountable czar to appease its liberal base is beneath the Office of the President.” * Orrin Hatch, don’t be a hypocritical dumbass. You appeal to your constituents all the time and make sure that you represent their needs. Appeasing your base is what they were elected over the other person to do. Don’t suddenly act all noble especially when you’ve been pushing laws that don’t benefit society as a whole (supplement industry ahem)

How much are you willing to bet?

Come on now. You’re expecting G-SE to do readin’ and understandin’ and stuff like that. And reading is just soooo hard for folks like him don’tcha know.

Who would the Pubs rather have in this job, anyway?

Just out of curiousity, why was that a problem? He was absolutely correct.

No one. They want to nullify it.

Arguable. But is it not less than diplomatic, if not insulting, to appoint as a delegate to the UN a person who has denigrated the UN? Why not make Lyndon LaRouche ambassador to the UK? Or Dick Cheney ambassador to Iraq? Noam Chomsky as ambassador to Israel?

It hasn’t performed at all. It is prohibited from acting until it has a director, which the Repubs were blocking. So all arguments about performance are moot until we have data.

I’m glad Obama took this step, and I’m glad that it likely means the end of pro-forma sessions, which were just as much bullshit when the Democrats did it. Bolton was and is an asshole, but filling a vacancy with a recess appointment is directly within Presidential authority.

If the GOP (or Democrats when they get the Senate back) wants to stop these things in the future they can get their asses back from vacation and actually keep the Senate in session.

All that said, Yog, you might want to double-check the procedural history before getting too high up on the horse, as this trick was pretty much invented by Reid to thwart Bush appointments.

I don’t think I have a full grasp of the whole time line, or all the machinations going on.

If the Republicans have such a problem with the new Consumer Protection Agency that they refuse to allow a vote for a director just to hold the agency up … then why didn’t they do something about quashing the agency in the first place? Was that something they were in a position to do? I assume Obama didn’t just create the agency by fiat or anything.

Am I making sense? There was a time for arguing against the agency, and that time is over. Suck it up; the agency exists.