Jon Stewart on The Daily Show just had a clip of Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), sitting at the rostrum in a near-empty chamber, gaveling the Senate into session and then right back out again over the span of about 30 seconds. I understand that Senate Republicans want to keep President Obama from making recess appointments (and we’ve seen how well that’s worked out), but why do Senate Dems want to go along with the gag that the Senate is actually still in session?
Probably because they don’t want the next Republican president doing what Obama’s trying… and said appointees won’t be limited by the other rules relating to this particular post.
Though good on Obama for not passing a debt limit increase out of session. Fuck Congress, this yoke belongs on their neck too and I’ll be damned if Democrats alone get sole blame for our current financial woes.
Because they haven’t received permission from the GOP-controlled House to adjourn.
So couldn’t Harry Reid leave it to his GOP colleagues to do what it takes to maintain the illusion of being in session?
They’re in session, it’s brief but it is no illusion and as SCSimmons points out, it is required by the Constitution. If Reid handed the gavel to McConnell for the pro forma sessions and left town, McConnell could get up to all kinds of mischief (e.g., “I ask unanimous consent that we repeal Health Reform, without objection so ordered”). Since Reid is going to have to have one of his local Democrats there anyway to object to any monkey business, he might as well give them the gavel.
I’m kind of surprised Reid isn’t reacting more strongly to the in-session “recess appointment” of that consumer protection guy from Ohio. The Senate and its leaders usually protect their own interests first, regardless of partisan implications.
Since Dems have the Majority, I think it’s pretty much universally them that act as President in the Senate. Usually it’s freshmen and juniors that are stuck with the boring task of banging gavels. If a Republican was given the gavel, as opossum said, they would have control over the Senate.
As for why Reid is doing this, there’s some truth that he, as a legislator, has loyalty to his branch of government, and that he and McConnell pretty much act buddy-buddy in the spirit of comity. Personally, I’m not satisfied with those answers either, so I would love to hear more reasons.
As for the future repercussions, I’m generally opposed to executive overreach, but this wasn’t so bad. These were appointees that were being blocked because republicans wanted the offices they were seeking to remain empty (similar to the ATF which hasn’t been given a Senate-approved director since 2006).
Essentially, the Senate is abdicating their duty. Moreover, the Senate can still prevent this from happening in the future (if a future executive seeks a significant power grab by appointing people without warning) by never adjourning at all, not even for a bathroom break. Worst-case scenario, a half-dozen junior Senators have to sit around in the Capital during their break. Considering the other constitutional crises we would be facing if we were facing a tyrannical takeover, I think we’ll have bigger fish to fry.
Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments, as the Constitution specifically permits. Theodore Roosevelt made some on just a one-day recess of the Senate, which caused a minor stink at the time. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made more than a hundred recess appointments each in their respective eight years in office. Even were the partisan shoe on the other foot now, I still wouldn’t have a problem with a President making appointments as Obama just did. The Senate should not, through parliamentary sleight-of-hand, be able to unconstitutionally take away a power of the President.
Democrats acted similarly to block GWB recess appointments in the past, and would probably do the same thing again with a new Republican President.
It’s sleazy and evil when their guys do it, but patriotic when ours do it.
What is unconstitutional about what the Senate is doing?
The recess appointment was never designed to get past a Senate that was unwilling (or actually in this case unable, the majority of the Senate is willing) to approve. It was designed to allow the President to keep the government functioning in the year 1789 when recesses were months in length and the Senators might be traveling by horse from Georgia to Washington, D.C. for a session.
Beside the point. Without going into it, there is a notable difference between what has been done previously (bipartisanly) and what Obama is trying now. You read a moral sentiment into it, not I.
This is an oversimplified and therefore inaccurate statement. The appointment in question was the result of a new agency (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or CFPB) which came out of the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute. This agency consolidates power formerly exerted by other Federal agencies and is now run by a single Director for a term of 5 years. As a new agency it wields tremendous political power by the appointment of a single individual.
It is this power that is objected to by Republicans. It should be objected to by Democrats as well so that future Republican Presidents can’t exert undue political influence. It’s been addressed legislatively to make it more bi-partisan via HR-1121 which would create a 5 panel commission with staggered terms. This is similar to how it’s done with the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The legislation was introduced back in March of 2011 so the President and the Democratic Party have truncated the normal legislative process used to address such problems and has done so in a way that it exacerbates the situation.
That’s the problem with democracy. Sometimes shit gets passed that you don’t like. Tough nuggies.
passing something that has obvious political ramifications down the road against you isn’t tough nuggies, it’s stupid. Which is why my general opinion of a group of people who are hired based on a popularity contest is low. The rest of the real world has to meet some kind of tested standard to be employable.
If the Republicans don’t like it, then they need to change the fucking law.
And if the Senate doesn’t want this person approved for this position, they can simply vote against the appointment. Except, as you well know, if the appointment actually came before the Senate they would overwhelmingly vote to approve the appointment.
I didn’t take a test to get my current job. I talked with the hiring manager, he liked the way I smelled, and he offered me a job. There was no test and no standard.
You know who else thought democracy was a sham popularity contest?
I think my favorite part of this whole debacle is the GOP whining about how they’ll retaliate against this overreach. Retaliate by doing what, exactly? Blocking every appointment they can? Opposing all legislation proposed by the President? When you’ve already adopted a scorched earth approach, your threats of salting the fields falls a little flat.
There will always be jobs for morons. I was referring to positions of responsibility. Most companies require at least a HS education.
Are you inferring by your post that you’d be happy with medical service by someone who has not demonstrated some level of proficiency? If that’s your position, it stinks.
Well that would be the point of HR1121.