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

[YogSothoth]

@Ca3799

Turns out that Obama requested a debt ceiling increase but "lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session during the 15-day period allowed for objections. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/30/obama-delays-request-for-12t-debt-ceiling-increase/#ixzz1ifseY0u1

So, they were pretending to be “in session” by “gaveling in and out” periodically to block recess appointments, but also claiming to be “out of session” to delay the debt issue.

Obama has to deal with a ridiculous amount of gamesmanship to get anything done at all, so I’m not willing to fault him in the least. They are just mad that he beat them at their own game.

Fuckers, of course there was another angle to the Republican game. I’ve found that the more I know about them, the more I dislike them. This bit of news just blows all those conservative claims about the Senate properly being in session to be a joke. I’m so glad he just ignored their claims of pro forma session. Its about time Obama started fighting back using their tactics

[Voyager]

Repeating this from the GD thread. The Times this morning reports that Obama is planning to run against Congress, who everyone hates. This appointment has gotten Romney to come out for Congress and against Consumer Protection. Obama has, at last, given up on compromising with them. I can’t believe though that anyone is surprised that Republicans are anti-consumer and pro-business. Hating the little people is their thing.

[MilTan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

IIRC, the CPA was created while Obama briefly had an occasionally-filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

It was not. The CFPB was created as part of Dodd-Frank. It was passed after Scott Brown had taken over as the junior Senator from Massachusetts, and passed with his “yea” vote. Further, Robert Byrd had passed away and his seat was vacant, and Russ Feingold did his usual holier-than-though act and joined the Republican filibuster, so the bill also needed Olympia Snowe’s and Susan Collins’s votes.

All of the whining from Republicans that they had no input into the bill, and that’s why they had to use this opportunity to exact concessions, are just so much hot air. Dodd-Frank was passed with a bipartisan super-majority. Snowe, Brown and Collins asked for, and got, very specific concessions in exchange for their votes.

[BigT]

@Martin_Hyde

YogSosoth obviously isn’t interested in hearing any sort of reasonable discussion on this matter. The simple truth is that recess appointments are a function of the 18th century’s transportation infrastructure. In 1789 it was envisioned that Congress would have two sessions, and long breaks in between. During these breaks the Congressmen would travel back to their homes and live among their constituents.

A special session to fill vacancies was, simply, impractical. Travel times were significant and the recess appointment power was an essential part of allowing government to function when the Congress wasn’t in session.

In the 21st century there is actually no practical reason for there to be a Congressional recess. The only purpose of recess appointments now is they allow a President to appoint people to fill offices when he doesn’t have the appropriate support in the Senate.

The “power of recess appointments” is actually not part of the checks and balances system, it is a relic. Considering both parties have used pro forma sessions to attempt to prevent recess appointments I find it laughable when someone idiotically acts like this is a case of Obama riding in on his white stallion to vanquish the evil Republicans who were on the verge of destroying the long and cherished power of the President to make appointments to high Federal office without legislative approval. That’s ludicrous, and is on the face of it at odds with the history behind the constitution.

To be blunt, several parts of our government do not work the way they were intended any longer, and all parties are abusing these procedural foibles of our system to their personal gain.

The whole issue of the recess appointment should in fact be moot, because the President has enough votes to get Cordray confirmed. The only reason he didn’t was because the Senate has, through excessive use of the filibuster, been turned into a supermajority chamber which is totally at odds with the intentions of the founders. Where the founders felt we needed supermajority votes, they explicitly provided for them. The filibuster is just a consequence of Senate rules and not even in the constitution at all.

Theodore Roosevelt obviously squeaked one in when he appointed some 200 persons to Federal office in the split second between two Congressional sessions, he was taking advantage of a quirk in the system.

Obama is taking advantage of another one, he’s basically saying that since the constitution does not explicitly define what a congressional recess is, he can interpret it how he sees fit. This presents some problems, what if he said congress was always in recess and from here on out Presidents didn’t ever get congressional approval for any appointees to anything? Obviously that wouldn’t happen because of the outrage, but to act as though this is anything other that Obama utilizing the same sort of “politicians tricks” as the other side is laughable.

You mean, the guy who posted in the pit because he’s upset about something doesn’t want to discuss it? OMG! What has this world come to? I mean, it’s not like you could actually go to the forum designed for discussing things if you wanted to. But instead you have to insist that everyone change how the forums work just because of you.

Oh, and none of that shit is relevant. Congress passed a law saying the CPA should exist. They are now using legal tricks to keep it from existing. It is perfectly okay to use one legal trick to try to overcome another legal trick, the same as it’s okay to fight back as soon as the other person throws the first punch. There’s not zero tolerance rule.

If Congress doesn’t want the CPA to exist, they can do the right thing and pass a law disbanding it. Well, they could, except that the people of the U.S. are for it, and thus they would not be doing their jobs as representatives. But, then again, why start now?

[Darth_Panda]

I was reading The Economist yesterday at the airport and ran into this little tidbit:

Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments, while George Bush junior made 171. Mr. Obama has so far made only 28.

The Economist, December 31st 2011, “Workingman’s blues,” p.21.

Make of it what you will.

[Imasquare]

@G-SE

…

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.

Did you not notice this part of the OP?

@YogSosoth

… **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

…

[Steve_MB]

@Jack_Batty

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

But… but… all those Republican staffers burned the midnight oil concocting a way their bosses could go on the record voting to create a consumer protection agency without actually creating a consumer protection agency, and now Obama undid all their hard work! No fair!!

[Steve_MB]

@Ca3799

Turns out that Obama requested a debt ceiling increase but "lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session during the 15-day period allowed for objections. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/30/obama-delays-request-for-12t-debt-ceiling-increase/#ixzz1ifseY0u1

So, they were pretending to be “in session” by “gaveling in and out” periodically to block recess appointments, but also claiming to be “out of session” to delay the debt issue.

Pity he didn’t do the Cordray appontment immediately after receiving this request, with a statment beginning “Having received confirmation from lawmakers that the Senate is, in fact, in recess…”.

[ShadowFacts]

I am reviving this near zombie to report that the now-functioning Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has enacted its first public enforcement action against Capital One.

[QUOTE=NPR]
Capital One Bank has agreed to refund two million of its customers $140 million over allegations that it used deceptive marketing tactics to pressure or mislead customers into buying add-on products, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today. The bank and credit-card lending company will also pay a $25 million penalty.
[/QUOTE]

Since this thread started in the Pit, allow me to add a hearty “Fuck You” to the assholes who tried to block this Bureau from functioning and protecting the American people from deceptive and fraudulent business practices. $140 million refunded to tricked and defrauded consumers = WIN. Assholes who didn’t want to protect consumers = LOSE.

[Jas09]

Excellent! Thanks for passing that along, ShadowFacts. Glad to see the bureau up and running.

[Ca3799]

Yes, thanks for the update!

[UltraVires]

@YogSosoth

As for the process that you so value, what type of process allows 39 Senators to leave the Senate in perpetual session and basically eliminate the presidential power of recess appointments?

It’s not a power that MUST be exercised. It would similar to saying that Obama must commit high crimes and misdemeanors or else he is eliminating the Congressional power of impeachment.

[Jack_Batty]

That’s a ridiculous analogy. A recess appointment isn’t punishment for there not being a session in order.