Has the director been “confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011”?
Did anyone check to see if the flag had gold braid on it when Obama was sworn in? Maybe his presidency is null and void!
You’d have to ask magellan01, since he hasn’t denied that’s what he’s calling for. And additionally, seems to think Obama can magically “get the dems in congress to agree” and just make it happen.
Sigh. No, I don’t know the degree to which the President may alter alter a law—in concert with the deems in congress—in order to have it be more palatable and ensure its enacted.
So, right back at ya: :rolleyes:
Well, consider it denied.
Unbelievable.
I’m sorry, but that word has already been used by the public at large when they heard about the way the Republicans tried to back out of a deal they had already signed off on. You’ll have to come up with another.
Yeah, they don’t get to do that. They are not imposing conditions on the President. They are imposing conditions on their fellow senators. Change the law or we will obstruct the President’s power to execute the one we just passed.
If they want to change the law, then they should try to do that.
What they are doing is indefensible.
What’s with this “deems” you keep using?
Ha. Guess I have a sticky “e” on my keyboard. Sorry about that. But could you really not figure out it was supposed to be “dems”?
Oh, it just did it again. It’s not a sticky key, its an auto-correct thing. Hmmm. That never happened before…
“Dem” is a proper noun. Capitalize the ‘D’. That might (or might not) stop the auto-correct from changing it. Either way, it’s the proper usage.
They can term it a political question and therefore not a matter for the judiciary, but I can’t see how it actually is. The political question doctrine refers to decisions the Constitution specifically contemplates other branches handling.
For example, the judiciary won’t interfere with foreign policy, because that’s the President’s job, and it won’t interfere with ratification of a treaty, because that’s the Senate’s job.
Here, the appointment authority is devolved from the underlying statute itself rather than from the Constitution, so there shouldn’t be a problem with the judiciary getting involved.
I. Didn’t. Suggest. Otherwise.
That being said, the Pubs were using this confirmation to get the Dems back to the table. This law was passed when Dems controlled both House and Senate. I don’t see what is so hard to understand about this. The Pubs were trying to amend the law or block it by using the tools they have at hand. Is that unusual?
The President was using the tools available to him to bypass the confirmation since the Pubs were holding it up. The Pubs refused to go on recess to block this action. The President appoints him anyway. You can argue that it is unconstitutional for the President to appoint someone while Congress is still in session. You could also probably argue that it is unconstitutional to pretend to stay in session just to block an appointment. You cannot argue that once a law is passed it is somehow etched in stone.
Going by the interpretation to date of what the Constitution says about recess appointments, yes. He can serve until Congress rejects the appointment, the recess appointment expires at the end of the next session, or for the given term if Congress approves the appointment.
Let me be clear. My quibble here is that I don’t agree that it will go to court, and that you’re completely wrong that all his actions will be reversed. It doesn’t matter what 1011 says if the Constitution allows the President to work around it with a recess appointment. It only matters in terms of the length of the appointees service. Even if Congress rejects the appointment in the next session, has that ever lead to automatic rolling back actions of a recess appointee because of a court ruling? The answer to that question would resolve in my mind the likelihood of any court action from this.
Yes, yes it is. Unusual and obstructionist, and frankly childish. Why don’t they refuse to confirm a Secretary of Heath and Human Services to prevent that cabinet office from being effective while they’re at it! Tra la, it’s a brave new world, where the Senate gets to neuter any aspect of the executive they don’t like by simply refusing to confirm anyone for those posts!
Let’s use a real-world example to see if you actually believe this.
In 2010, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved two amendments to the state constitution designed to prevent gerrymandering.
Since Florida had a history of minority voting rights violations at the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, Justice Department approval is required before any changes can be made to state voting laws, and since the entire state is subject to the approval requirement, only the governor can submit changes for approval.
Rick Scott, who vehemently opposed the amendments, is refusing to submit them to the Justice Department for approval, which essentially nullifies them since they cannot take effect until approved.
Like the CPA statute, the constitutional amendments are not set in stone. Is Scott’s tactic legitimate or not?
Its a neat trick. The Pubbies can protest that Cordray wasn’t approved by the Senate. Of course, the reason he wasn’t approved was that the Pubbies blocked a vote that they would lose. I figure their only legislative recourse is to insist that a vote be held, which they would lose.
So, if they go to court and the court says the vote must be held, wouldn’t they be in non-compliance if they refuse to allow the vote to go forward?
Non-compliance of what? The court can’t force the Senate to vote on something.
The Times this morning says that Obama is planning to run against the Republican Congress, which as we know is way unpopular. One benefit of the appointment is that it forced Romney to come out for Congress - which something they are going to try to tie him to. Dem Kenyans are sneaky. 
But if their case is this can’t go forward unless they vote, and the Court says “Yeah, you’re right, so go ahead and vote” and they refuse to vote, then they look like a bunch of…oh. Yeah. Right.
…Republicans? 