# Recess appointment of Consumer Agency head **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510 "2012-01-05T14:54:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/41 "2012-01-05T18:21:42Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Trying to prevent a federal agency from operating, after it was rightfully created by statute, by using a perpetual filibuster to prevent a straight vote on the appointment is obviously against the spirit of various powers given to both branches. > > That being said, the President wasn’t given recess powers because it was seen as important for the President to be allowed temporary political appointments that Congress won’t approve; he was given them because for months at a time in the 18th and 19th centuries Congress would not be in session and thus the President would need some ability to make sure the government kept running during these times. I think it’s just fine today then, if the president uses recess powers because one party is trying to actively prevent the government from running. There is a fundamental difference between Congress holding up a political appointment for one particular person because they feel that the appointee is a very poor fit for the job, and Congress holding up a political appointment for ANYONE at all, because they want to stop the government from doing its job. For example, it may not be that bad to hold up an appointment of someone to the post of ambassador United Nations if, for example, that person had been thrown off delegations in the past for shooting his mouth off, had been called “undiplomatic” by other countries, and had said “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.” Holding up the appointment of _that particular person_ for that particular job might help to let Congress scrutinize him a little more closely. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/42 "2012-01-05T18:28:52Z")
I can certainly agree that a minority of the Senate attempting to stop a political appointment to essentially disestablish a recently created Federal agency would be a situation where it’s justifiable to use a recess appointment to get someone in over the Senate’s objection. However, the truth of course is that recess appointments are of course used frequently to get many different types of appointees appointed, including people like Bolton. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/43 "2012-01-05T18:49:56Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > But one House cannot compel the other to adjourn and so there is no disagreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate and so II,3 is moot in this case. What on earth are you talking about? This is exactly the sort of disagreement contemplated. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/44 "2012-01-05T18:54:06Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I can certainly agree that a minority of the Senate attempting to stop a political appointment to essentially disestablish a recently created Federal agency would be a situation where it’s justifiable to use a recess appointment to get someone in over the Senate’s objection. > > However, the truth of course is that recess appointments are of course used frequently to get many different types of appointees appointed, including people like Bolton. Absolutely. And if recess appointments are routinely used, and are used to get very unpalatable candidates into positions, then there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using it this time to get someone into a position whose sole bad points seems to be that they are: a) appointed by Obama b) heading an agency that the Republicans do not like ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/45 "2012-01-05T19:36:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This turns the whole process into a poor joke. Giving the President recess powers means nothing if there is no recess. Recess powers are supposed to be there when congress is _not_ in session. When they are in session, it’s SOP. If congress decides to not show up for X amount of time, then they are in recess. These days, X has been equal to three days. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/46 "2012-01-05T19:38:44Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The three days thing is based on a justice department interpretation of what constitutes a congressional recess…I think it dates back to the 1990s. It isn’t necessarily binding in any way, though. I believe it is just an executive branch interpretation of a legislative branch activity, so whatever was said during Clinton’s Presidency wouldn’t be binding on how Obama would interpret it. Except that Obama’s own administration already agreed to recess equalling three days. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/47 "2012-01-05T19:44:28Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Absolutely. > > And if recess appointments are routinely used, and are used to get very unpalatable candidates into positions, then there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using it this time to get someone into a position whose sole bad points seems to be that they are: > > a) appointed by Obama > b) heading an agency that the Republicans do not like You do realize that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal, right? It is incumbent upon a President to nominate someone who can pass confirmation. If not, he needs to appoint someone else. That said, recess appointments will happen, but it is the opposite of helpful when a President tries to rewrite rules during the process. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/48 "2012-01-05T19:52:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What on earth are you talking about? This is exactly the sort of disagreement contemplated. Ummmm . . . really? The House moved to adjourn but that is not binding on the Senate and both Houses can adjourn at different times. What’s the disagreement? The only way there can be a disagreement is when one House \*\*wants to adjourn \*\*for more than 3 days and the other won’t let it. The Senate does not want to adjourn so no disagreement under II, 3 You may be referring to a political disagreement between the two Houses, but that is not the constitutional issue being discussed. > [@magellan01](#): > > You do realize that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal, right? It is incumbent upon a President to nominate someone who can pass confirmation. If not, he needs to appoint someone else. That said, recess appointments will happen, but it is the opposite of helpful when a President tries to rewrite rules during the process. I think the Dems used this on Bush Jr. when they emphasized the “advice” part of “advice and consent” on his SCOTUS nominations. In all fairness, I don’t think it was intended as gridlock but more of a friendly warning that his nominees could get borked if too far right. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/49 "2012-01-05T19:59:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You do realize that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal, right? It is incumbent upon a President to nominate someone who can pass confirmation. If not, he needs to appoint someone else. That said, recess appointments will happen, but it is the opposite of helpful when a President tries to rewrite rules during the process. And it is incumbent on the Congress to at least put the nominees to a vote. Other than _possibly_ someone who would be totally and intentionally derelict in their duties in running the CFPB there’s no one the President could nominate that could pass confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/50 "2012-01-05T20:08:25Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > And it is incumbent on the Congress to at least put the nominees to a vote. > > Other than _possibly_ someone who would be totally and intentionally derelict in their duties in running the CFPB there’s no one the President could nominate that could pass confirmation. The Republicans showed him the route to confirmation with the conditions they set forth, as cited by **Yorick73** : > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by link > Replace the single Director with a board to oversee the Bureau. This would prevent a single person from dominating the Bureau and provide a critical check on the Bureau’s authority. > Subject the Bureau to the Congressional appropriations process. This would provide oversight and accountability to the American people on how public money is spent. > Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential financial regulators, who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that excessive regulations do not needlessly cause bank failures. So, it’s wrong to say that he HAD to do this because otherwise no one would have been confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/51 "2012-01-05T20:10:40Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think the Dems used this on Bush Jr. when they emphasized the “advice” part of “advice and consent” on his SCOTUS nominations. In all fairness, I don’t think it was intended as gridlock but more of a friendly warning that his nominees could get borked if too far right. That’s my recollection, as well. The debate as to is it more “advice” or “consent”. Prior to Bork it was, I think, pretty much all “advice”. It’s been moving more andy more toward “consent” ever since. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/52 "2012-01-05T20:11:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You do realize that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal, right? It is incumbent upon a President to nominate someone who can pass confirmation. If not, he needs to appoint someone else. That said, recess appointments will happen, but it is the opposite of helpful when a President tries to rewrite rules during the process. In this case, however, Congress does not want to confirm anyone at all. Nobody. No appointment whatsoever. Their goal is to get nobody confirmed at all, no ,matter what. They don’t have a problem with this particular person being appointed; they do not want the agency to function at all. They are accomplishing this by making sure that nobody is ever appointed. It does not matter who the president tried to appoint. Nobody will ever, ever, ever pass confirmation with this congress. This is because they do not want the Agency in question to operate. Ever. Do you understand this point, or do I need to put it another way? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/53 "2012-01-05T20:12:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The Republicans showed him the route to confirmation with the conditions they set forth, as cited by **Yorick73** : > > So, it’s wrong to say that he HAD to do this because otherwise no one would have been confirmed. That was anything _but_ a route to confirmation. It was a massive reformation of the entire agency for the purpose of making it almost ineffectual. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/54 "2012-01-05T20:18:06Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > In this case, however, Congress does not want to confirm anyone at all. Nobody. No appointment whatsoever. Their goal is to get nobody confirmed at all, no ,matter what. They don’t have a problem with this particular person being appointed; they do not want the agency to function at all. They are accomplishing this by making sure that nobody is ever appointed. > > It does not matter who the president tried to appoint. Nobody will ever, ever, ever pass confirmation with this congress. This is because they do not want the Agency in question to operate. Ever. > > Do you understand this point, or do I need to put it another way? I know that they don’t WANT it. But one of the reasons they don’t is the lack of accountability. At this point, you need to give them the benefit of the doubt. They offered up conditions. One has to assume that if the conditions were met, the appointment would have gone through. Obama circumvented the negotiations, so the Shithead label winds up on his forehead. Now, if he had agreed to the conditions and the Reps still wouldn’t confirm, they get to wear the Shithead label on their foreheads. Do you understand this point? Or do I need to put it another way? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/55 "2012-01-05T20:20:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That was anything _but_ a route to confirmation. It was a massive reformation of the entire agency for the purpose of making it almost ineffectual. Please. It’s called the art of negotiation. One side starts off with a bunch of stuff, knowing they won’t get it all. But for now, the accountability issue was the sticking point. And last time I checked, “accountable” does not equal “ineffectual”. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/56 "2012-01-05T20:23:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I know that they don’t WANT it. But one of the reasons they don’t is the lack of accountability. At this point, you need to give them the benefit of the doubt. They offered up conditions. One has to assume that if the conditions were met, the appointment would have gone through. Obama circumvented the negotiations, so the Shithead label winds up on his forehead. Now, if he had agreed to the conditions and the Reps still wouldn’t confirm, they get to wear the Shithead label on their foreheads. > > Do you understand this point? Or do I need to put it another way? Only an idiot would have capitulated to those “conditions”. The Republicans put those “conditions” forward because they knew that no one in their right mind would agree to them, and the reason they did so was to throw even more sand in the machinery. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/57 "2012-01-05T20:24:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > The Republicans showed him the route to confirmation with the conditions they set forth, as cited by **Yorick73** : > > > > So, it’s wrong to say that he HAD to do this because otherwise no one would have been confirmed. > > That was anything _but_ a route to confirmation. It was a massive reformation of the entire agency for the purpose of making it almost ineffectual. I was about to respond to **magellan01’s** post, which was a response to me, but **Czarcasm** has already said what I wanted to say and he worded it much better than I would have. So… ditto ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/58 "2012-01-05T20:25:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Only an idiot would have capitulated to those “conditions”. The Republicans put those “conditions” forward because they knew that no one in their right mind would agree to them, and the reason they did so was to throw even more sand in the machinery. Welcome to the sausage factory. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/59 "2012-01-05T20:38:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Please. It’s called the art of negotiation. One side starts off with a bunch of stuff, knowing they won’t get it all. But for now, the accountability issue was the sticking point. And last time I checked, “accountable” does not equal “ineffectual”. In a vacuum your argument might make just a little sense, but we _know_ that the Republicans want the Obama presidency to grind to a halt, so that just doesn’t fly. Let’s take just step one for example: The Board. Has it been shown to anyone’s satisfaction that the current system is running amuck and that a Board is even necessary? Who would appoint the members of this board? Who would question the members of this board? How long would the members of the board serve? How could members of this board be removed? And here is the big question that I think the Republicans think they know the answer to: _Can the Republicans make the process of answering the above questions last long enough to effectively shut the agency down for the duration of Obama’s Presidency?_ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/60 "2012-01-05T20:41:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Welcome to the sausage factory. Don’t shit in my hand and call it sausage, please. I didn’t wake up yesterday, and we both know that stopping Obama from accomplishing anything, good or bad, is a primary goal of the Republicans in power. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510.md?page=4)