OK, that’s where you lost me. No, they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt at this point.
The time to discuss how the Agency is structured is long passed. The Agency is now structured with a head person in charge. This structure is not at all unusual.
Now is not the time to say “we want a do-over in how the Agency is structured”
And has been pointed out, the “accountability” excuse is so full of holes it looks like a sieve.
It will wind up in courts (maybe SCOTUS) because Dodd-Frank says that the director has no powers unless (specifically) confirmed by the Congress. So that recess appointed director, according to the law, cannot do anything.
I’d like to see Obama joke that this congress doesn’t seem interested in getting any American get back to work, including him.
Or has he already?
Math problem:
If it takes an infinite amount of time to appoint 1 person, how long will it take to appoint a board full of people? You may use your calculator, but please show your work.
Doubtless there will be challenges on this basis. But doubtless (IMO) this whole thing wouldn’t have been done at all if the administration didn’t think that they would fail (unless it was done for political reasons).
Here’s a question: Is that just the standard boilerplate inserted into any bill creating a position that is subject to Senate approval? If so, I don’t think SCOTUS would get involved (or shouldn’t anyway) - since it would be business as usual?
So you want the Executive to make sweeping, unprecedented changes to an act of the Legislature (already signed into law, I might add!) in order to avoid stepping on the co-equality of the Executive and Legislature?
That doesn’t make sense in ANY world.
Their motivations are irrelevant. The only question is id their actions are within the rules.
And do you really think this is the first time that one party might try to string along the other or try to stop what the other side wants to do? That’s part of the process we have. Obama is the one who circumvented the process, so, as I said, he gets to wear the Shithead sticker on his forehead on this one.
No. I want him to negotiate to the point of getting it done. Like I said, in a negotiation, both sides usually start very far apart. But by not doing that and circumventing the process by not waiting the three days which his own administration deemed necessary to consider congress in recess, he’s the asshole here.
Under what other circumstances, I’m curious, do you believe the president has the authority to unilaterally “negotiate” major changes to a voted-upon piece of legislation?
Perhaps next he should “negotiate” the Obamacare bill into also having single-payer insurance for all at the Federal level, for example? Or perhaps he could “negotiate” this year’s tax tables to charge you, specifically, a 115% income tax because he thinks it’s funny.
I’m still following these replies (and, thanks for keeping it mostly non-partisan!), but, for what it’s worth, magellan01 has convinced me that Obama did the right thing.
Blocking an appointment in order to force changes to the law, IMO, trumps other crappy precedents that are being set here. To try and twist the blocking action as an acceptable way to renegotiate the law opened my eyes to how nasty that action is.
I hope the Democrats never attempt this to force a change in the law, and I hope this is the only time the Republicans do it. I further hope that recess appointments remain a last-resort method.
The Republicans in Congress have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.
To be honest, I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know how much he can negotiate any changes, never mind “major” ones. But it’s my guess that if the deems in congress agreed, there really wouldn’t be a problem.
But the point is that he didn’t negotiate. And not only that, he didn’t wait for an actual recess. It’s almost as if he think’s he’s not President, but King.
Oh, you mean something Constitutional, as opposed to his UNconstitutional mandate. That would be novel for him, indeed! 
I have never before seen a congress whose sole goal was to stop everything the President wants to do, no matter what that may be, for good or ill. If this is the process that the Republicans want to follow, then the “shithead” label is totally owned by them. They have no interest in negotiation, only capitulation, and even if Obama was stupid enough to agree to this blackmail, there isn’t a chance in hell they would approve any of the conditions they themselves put forward before the Obama Presidency was over and done with. This capitulation would be the effective end of the agency-you know this, I know this, and I would thank you to quit pretending otherwise.
It’s amazing, really, how you can advocate that the President stomp all over legislative authority/independence, and use the fact he’s not doing so as arguing that he’s stepping all over legislative authority/independence. It’s amazing how you think that the president is acting like a king by using a power he’s guaranteed by the constitution, where you apparently wouldn’t be bothered by him ACTUALLY acting like a king by unilaterally rewriting legislation at his whim.
Recess appointments happen, and they’re not a huge deal. Reid was wrong to be a dick about Bush’s, and that’s the bare fact of it.
Attempts by Congress to neuter passed legislation after-the-fact by procedural games are stupid and wrong, but not a huge deal. The filibuster is what it is.
What you and the Senate Republicans have proposed is a giant, totally wrong, and evil can of worms, that essentially sets the precedent that a sitting president can not merely twist the words of legislation, but utterly and literally rewrite them to whatever he wants. No. No. All wrong.
–
I honestly believe at this point that at least some of the Senate Republicans offered that evil (and bullshit) compromise because they know Obama probably won’t abuse such a power, but if he establishes precedent that a president can rewrite standing legislation then the next REPUBLICAN president can go hog fucking wild with it and have a political shield of “oh, but it was okay for YOUR guy to do it, eh?”.
My opinion of the so-called “negotiations” the Republicans put forth? It was the equivalent of going down to a car dealership and making an offer of “Why don’t you just hand me the keys to the car.” Do you think the dealer should wear a “shithead” label on his forehead for kicking your ass to the curb in such a case?
I don’t know whether it is “standard boilerplate” (I have seen info that it isn’t) but whether it is or isn’t, it says, explicitly, “confirmed by the Senate”. Has Cordray been “confirmed by the Senate”? No. So he doesn’t qualify.
Of course, just like Obama decided that Senate is in recess because HE defines what is “recess”, he can decide that Cordray has been “confirmed by the Senate” because HE defines what “confirmed by the Senate” means. But the courts will trump that.
I’d expand on this to include a threat of “give me the car, or I’ll make it impossible for you to sell cars, period.” The dealer in this case went ahead and sold a car anyway, putting the Republican-analog in the position of having to pretend that sale didn’t count or was improper.
So what will the Republicans do? Refuse to recognize Cordray’s authority? Refuse to take meetings with him? Walk out during any possible testimony or report he delivers to congress? Refuse to recognize the validity of any actions he takes as head of the CFPB?
Any action he takes as the head of the CFPB will be challenged in courts based on the law’s wording that says he doesn’t have any powers until he is confirmed by the Senate.
Well, with any luck, the Judiciary will side with the Executive on this one, because the Legislature is being a dick.