More at link:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This is the president leading. This is congress getting (moved) the f*ck out of the way.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a defiant display of executive power, President Barack Obama on Wednesday will buck GOP opposition and name Richard Cordray as the nation's chief consumer watchdog. Outraged Republican leaders in Congress suggested that courts would determine the appointment was illegal.
With a director in place, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can start overseeing the mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies often blamed for practices that helped tank the economy.
The president planned to highlight just that point during his announcement later Wednesday in Ohio that he was putting Cordray in the job.
It seems certain to raise the level of confrontational politics for a president seeking re-election by championing the middle class. Acting right after Tuesday's GOP presidential caucuses in Iowa, Obama is seeking to grab attention with his most brazen leap-frog over Congress and show that criticism won't slow him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cordray#Attorney_General_careerhis nomination was immediately in jeopardy because 44 Senate Republicans had previously vowed to derail any nominee in order to push for a decentralized structure to the organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Financial_Protection_BureauThe United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the federal agency that holds primary responsibility for regulating consumer protection in the United States. The bureau began operation on July 21, 2011. It was founded as a result of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which passed during the 111th United States Congress in response to the Late-2000s recession and financial crisis.
So far I haven't heard Senate Repubs give reasons for why the appointment shouldn't happen. Questioning the organization of the CPB is pointless, it's signed, sealed and delivered, already law of the land. Get over it and stop trying to re-legislate with obtuse filibustering. Good recess appointment.
Exactly what he should have done.
That was the reason. They believe the agency should not exist (at least not in its current form), so they were unwilling to allow anyone to head it.
WTF cares what the GOP thinks?
Weren't you bitching about the rights of the minority party when Republicans held the house and senate?
I'm not generally in favor of recess appointments, but the GOP's refusal to confirm Cordray is indefensible. None of them are even challenging his qualifications. They're just trying to undermine any efforts to implement the financial reform that was passed by appropriate vote of Congress and signed by the POTUS. I support a recess appointment in this case.
If the GOP wasn't even challenging his qualifications, I must agree with you. OTOH, if they had a legitimate issue with the qualifications of his appointment I wouldn't agree in the least and would, imo rightly, say that he was usurping power from Congress.
Hmm, while I might agree with him making a recess appointment I have to wonder if it is legit? Any armchair lawyers (or better yet, real ones) want to weigh in?
"Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats started the practice when George W. Bush was president to halt him from making recess appointments.
The Senate held such a session on Tuesday and planned another one on Friday. Republicans contend Obama cannot make a recess appointment during such a break of less than three days, based on years of precedent, and they point to comments by Obama's own Justice Department echoing that view."
If the statement about Obama's own JD echoing that view is accurate it would be pretty dang hard to defend.
What happens if he is found to be an unconstitutional appointment? Does everything he does from now until the court decides get undone?
The Republicans have said that they don't have a particular problem with him, but that they object to the structure of the agency as a whole and will not approve anyone, no matter who they are.
Hmm, while I might agree with him making a recess appointment I have to wonder if it is legit? Any armchair lawyers (or better yet, real ones) want to weigh in?
"Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats started the practice when George W. Bush was president to halt him from making recess appointments.
The Senate held such a session on Tuesday and planned another one on Friday. Republicans contend Obama cannot make a recess appointment during such a break of less than three days, based on years of precedent, and they point to comments by Obama's own Justice Department echoing that view."
If the statement about Obama's own JD echoing that view is accurate it would be pretty dang hard to defend.
What happens if he is found to be an unconstitutional appointment? Does everything he does from now until the court decides get undone?
"Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats started the practice when George W. Bush was president to halt him from making recess appointments.
The Senate held such a session on Tuesday and planned another one on Friday. Republicans contend Obama cannot make a recess appointment during such a break of less than three days, based on years of precedent, and they point to comments by Obama's own Justice Department echoing that view."
If the statement about Obama's own JD echoing that view is accurate it would be pretty dang hard to defend.
What happens if he is found to be an unconstitutional appointment? Does everything he does from now until the court decides get undone?
I'd have to see the court precedents to evaluate that. Comments from his Justice Department are actually not relevant. You could call it hypocritical but it isn't illegal unless valid precedent says it is. In any event, there wouldn't be any retroactive remedy. It isn't possible to "undo" everything someone does as head of an agency. The most that could be done, in theory, is to rush into court and get an injunction to prevent Cordray from operating as head of the agency. Probably wouldn't work.
Exactly. The Dems started this nonsense when 'W' was in office and now that they are having it done to them, they don't like it very much. So Obama goes ahead and makes the recess appointment in direct violation of Congressional rules/precedent that would block such appointments. He wants to see what happens now. I guess the difference is that Dems don't like playing by the rules unless it suits their agenda right?
Anyway, this is unnecessarily provocative and will only hurt his standing with Americans further. This is a net-negative for the President in my view.
Wouldn't the Justice Department be the ones arguing to the courts that the appointment is legit?
Also, why does a private entity need to sue in order to determine the Constitutionality of something the President does? Does Congress not have this power or could they simply not get the votes to do so right now?
That would certainly be my objection, that we should be fixing our existing regulatory structure rather than adding a new, centralized bureaucracy. That said, I am against pro forma sessions and think that every Presidential nominee deserves a timely vote up or down, with no filibuster because the Senate's privilege in determining its own operating procedures should not be construed to prevent it from carrying out its Constitutional duties. Therefore I have no problem with Obama appointing his nominee in a recess of three days. I do think the Senate should be forced to hold a hearing and a vote in its next regularly scheduled session, with a straight up or down vote; no filibusters or holds.That was the reason. They believe the agency should not exist (at least not in its current form), so they were unwilling to allow anyone to head it.
Exactly. The Dems started this nonsense when 'W' was in office and now that they are having it done to them, they don't like it very much. So Obama goes ahead and makes the recess appointment in direct violation of Congressional rules/precedent that would block such appointments. He wants to see what happens now. I guess the difference is that Dems don't like playing by the rules unless it suits their agenda right?
Anyway, this is unnecessarily provocative and will only hurt his standing with Americans further. This is a net-negative for the President in my view.
Well first someone would have to take him to court, and I'm not sure who would have standing to do so. Congress as a whole could decide to do it, or perhaps just the Senate, but I highly doubt the Democrats would go along with it.
I'm not really sure the courts will decide it at all actually, although if they did I doubt everything he did would suddenly be undone. (that would just be a nightmare)