Obama to appoint Cordray to head CFPB

[greg334]

Because several of you seem to feel that it's much to do about nothing and that it won't set up a dangerous precedent, how would you feel if it had been a Supreme Court appointment?

Well don't take my approach as not caring - it is quite the opposite. BUT I'm not going to act as if it is the end of the world- it isn't.

See it is very dangerous and I care about it but it also has something to do with the point that the congress has to act, not the courts but congress. Throughout this thread, there seems to be the same kneejerk reaction from the fox/conservative side of the world where anything he, Obama, does is amplified as this was 2006 and the person was Bush. IF they feel that there is a reason for invalidating the appointment, then they don't have to confirm the guy but if they want to pursue impeachment based on a separation of powers issue and other key things I heard discussed (not by legal experts but by congressional members), then they could but what I can do is sit back and remember all of this when it comes time to vote for my senator(s) and congressman reminding them that their job isn't about the party but the constitution.

No matter what happens, there is an underlying issue here with both democrats and republicans the same - they don't give a crap about the people.

 

[witness23]

To give some here in the soapbox a little more insight on this situation I suggest you read the following:

The Volokh Conspiracy » Recess Appointment of Richard Cordray Despite Pro Forma Sessions

 

[jaminjim]

To give some here in the soapbox a little more insight on this situation I suggest you read the following:

The Volokh Conspiracy » Recess Appointment of Richard Cordray Despite Pro Forma Sessions

That was somewhat of an interesting opinion piece.

But I think the link that I provided earlier trumps an opinion from school house lawyers.
Here is the link again.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P
Did you read it the first time I posted it? If so what are your thoughts on it?
The authors of the report.
Congressional Research Service
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21308

 

[witness23]

Look, this happened not so long ago with the Bush administration, where the Democrats had the same objection to Bush’s decision to recess appoint Judge William Pryor to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Evans v. Stephens

The challengers(*democrats) have used both history and textual analysis to support their contentions that the ten- or eleven-day break in the Senate’s Session that underlies Judge Pryor’s appointment was not a “Recess” within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause. We have considered all of the arguments. But the arguments are not so strong as to persuade us that [President Bush's] interpretation is incorrect. [...] The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today.​

*added by me.

 

[jaminjim]

So I take that as a "no I didn't read your link."

 

[cableguymn]

Look, what Obama did is not unprecedented(no matter what FoxNews says). What is unprecedented is the obstructionism the Republicans have engaged in.

Oh really?

Robert Bork
Clarence Thomas
Sam Alito
John Bolton


Shall I go on?

PBS is an arm of the democrat party.

 

[Pilgrim]

So I take that as a "no I didn't read your link."

We wouldn't want substance to get in the way, now would we?
The fact of the matter is that the Pryor recess appointment did not occur under the same circumstances as these Obama appointments. The Senate had been in a declared recess approved by the House, and Pryor's appointment came within 10 days of the start of the new session in violation of an unwritten rule that had been observed in years past.

The Washington Examiner offers a good explanation of the problems surrounding the Obama appointments (emphasis mine):

To justify this power grab, Obama contends that the Senate has actually been in recess for weeks because the Senate's brief pro forma sessions every three days are a sham since no official business is conducted. Obama might as well argue that his appointments are legal because the moon is made of green cheese. Article I, Section Five of the Constitution states, in part, that "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ..." The House has not consented to a Senate recess. Thus, the Senate's pro forma sessions are strictly constitutional, the Senate is legally in session, and Obama must seek its advice and consent on these appointments. Otherwise, they are null and void and will be thrown out by a federal court. Obama is counting on that not happening before November's election.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama thumbs nose at Constitution on 'recess appointments' | Washington Examiner
​

The GOP needs to move IMMEDIATELY to have these appointments declared null and void. The arrogance of the pipsqueak president should be established for all to see, and hopefully the court decision would come at a critical time during the election in order to emphasize his ignorance of and flagrant disregard for the constitution.

​

 

[muttly]

Pipsweak President. Hehehe

 

[tbubster]

Because several of you seem to feel that it's much to do about nothing and that it won't set up a dangerous precedent, how would you feel if it had been a Supreme Court appointment?

It seems that only some are allowed to use the but this is whats gonna happen,This is how bad its gonna get defence when speaking against something.

 

[RLENT]

The arrogance of the pipsqueak president should be established for all to see, and hopefully the court decision would come at a critical time during the election in order to emphasize his ignorance of and flagrant disregard for the constitution.

Here's the problem for all Republicrat neocon geniuses that are involved in delusional thinking:

The assumption apparently is that because Obama is flagrantly disregarding the Constitution that this then means all sensible people will flock to the GOP as the white knights of virtue and saviors of all things Constitutional ....

Good luck with that ..... since your own party is guilty of same, the only way this will ever happen is if you field a candidate which has some credibility and is not repulsive to those you wish to attract.

You apparently think that you can take this issue (involving a frickin' appointment to some Consumer Protection agency) and run with it as some huge deal that will get traction, absent your abject hatred of Obama ?

Seriously ?

That the above quote was written by someone who has the arrogance to be highly dismissive of both those who are younger, and those who are not ideologically of the same bent (independents, mushy moderates) is truly a crack-up ....

One wonders what sort of a warped train of thought is required to believe that they come up with a valid appeal to attract the above folks - which are entirely necessary to defeat Obama - perhaps some sort of Vulcan mind-meld right at the voting booth .... to inculcate them to the one true way of Neoconmunist™ way of crony capitalism and permanent, endless war .....

Yeah, that's the ticket .....

 

[jaminjim]

Here's the problem...

(involving a frickin' appointment to some Consumer Protection agency) and run with it as some huge deal

Seriously ?





Yeah, that's the ticket .....

Don't you think its a big deal? Does it really matter what the appointment was? If it had been a Supreme Court Justice would it be important? Will it be okay if a President decides that Congress is not working because of deadlock and deems them to be not in Session.

That gets rid of the checks and balances thingy.

I'm thinking (could be wrong) that you feel that there are larger fish to fry right now, but we need to pay attention to the whole picture, right?

 

[RLENT]

Don't you think its a big deal?

Yes, I do think it's a fairly big deal.

Does it really matter what the appointment was?

In terms of the principle ?

No, not really.

In terms of the practical effect ?

Yes, absolutely.

If it had been a Supreme Court Justice would it be important?

Strawman - I never said that it wasn't important.

But importances are relative, not absolute. (IOW, not everything is important as everything else)

Will it be okay if a President decides that Congress is not working because of deadlock and deems them to be not in Session.

Nope.

That gets rid of the checks and balances thingy.

Indeed ...... and we'll talk more about that in just a moment

I'm thinking (could be wrong) that you feel that there are larger fish to fry right now, but we need to pay attention to the whole picture, right?

Yes, we do.

I think that if you take a look at the practical effects of the action, it's fairly insignificant (for the reasons mentioned below)

It's certainly a slippery slope ... which is never good (even more so in these times)

To understand it in the context that I look at it in, consider which of the following which should be of most concern to you (and every other American):

The fact that the Executive may have done something (I say may have because it appears to be in dispute) which appoints someone as a recess appointment, who will still be subject to confirmation (which corrects the effect of the action)

or

That the Congress has passed (on a bipartisan basis) something (NDAA) that the Executive has now signed, that appears to enshrine into law the suspension of Habeas Corpus, giving him the unilateral right to use the military to pick up and indefinitely detain citizens, without allowing them to avail themselves of due process, in complete violation of the Constitution ?

Keep in mind that the former, if true, is but one branch of government which is out of control and can be resolved through the appropriate checks and balances ..... whereas the latter is not only two branches of government out of control, but both parties acting in collusion to accomplish it.

Further, given the histories and comments of (at least some of) those raising the recess appointment issue (both here and elsewhere) it is blatantly obvious (to me at least) that the former is merely being used as a political weapon for partisan advantage. Just look at the comments here by our resident partisan hacks.

Yeah, good luck on getting me (and many others) onboard with that.

Crass partisanship is the very thing that is driving folks away from the parties (both of them)

Both parties need to wise up and figure that out - or run the risk of fading into irrelevance.

 

[Turtle]

Clearly, the assumption is that this is a flagrant violation of the Constitution because it's Obama who did it. But it is? It's ironic that is was the Senate Democrats (Harry Reid, actually) who invented the pro forma thing as a means of technically staying in session to thwart recess appointments by Bush the Junior, which is far more of a flagrant violation of the Constitution than is what Obama did. While I don't agree with what Obama did, he's at least sticking to what many legal and Constitutional experts believe to be the intent of the Recess Appointments clause, whereas Reid and the pro forma sessions actually try to render an Executive Branch power granted by the Constitution as meaningless (more on both, below).

"I think that if you take a look at the practical effects of the action, it's fairly insignificant (for the reasons mentioned below)"

At first thought this was no big deal, fairly insignificant, pretty cut and dry (when Congress comes back they'll simply not confirm the appointment, end of story), but it's not that simple, and as it turns out, "fairly insignificant" is the exact opposite of what the practical effects are likely to be. For one, the appointment lasts until the end of the next Senate session, which is for all intents and purposes the end of the year. Two, practical effects is the Supreme Court will be getting all up in both the president's and Congress' business. And it's a Constitutional situation we're better off not having to deal with. As one legal scholar said, "For the president to say that the Senate is not in session when the Senate says that it is, introduces a set of constitutional confrontations that we would be far better off doing without."

Obama is just an idiot for trying to pull a fast power play, because he can't see the forest for the trees, and the Republicans will push this to court, for the same reasons. Obama, in the words of the esteemed Mitch McConnell from the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, "arrogantly circumvented the American people" with the appointment, but at the same time, the Senate, with its pro forma tactic, renders obsolete a constitutional power of the Executive Branch. The effects of all this will not be fairly insignificant when all is said and done.

During the first century or so, Congress was in session only about 6 months out of the year. Recess Appointments allowed the president to keep the government functioning by filling important jobs when the Senate was not around to act on nominations. And that's a key interpretation of the Recess Appointments clause, whether or not the Senate is able to act on the nominations, and it's one that will now be left up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Because within the last century or so presidents began using Recess Appointments more frequently, almost to the point of being out of control (Clinton made 95 recess appointments to full-time government positions. George W made 99. The number for Obama so far is 32), the pro forma was invented to artificially keep Congress in session. The Supreme Court will have to rule whether or not a pro forma session is really a session (where we have the Court deciding when the Senate is in session, despite what the Senate says), and whether they are still quite unable to act on the nomination (what Obama contends).

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3
3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Traditionally, the above has been interpreted by both the Senate and the President, of both parties, and backed by several court opinions, that a president has a power to fill vacancies that arise during or before a Senate recess, and not solely those "that may happen during Recess of the Senate". The Supreme Court will rule on that, too.

And depending on how they rule, they could undermine the intent of keeping important government positions filled when the Senate is not in session. The power of Recess Appointments has been controversial since the beginning, so a Supreme Court ruling would almost certainly settle that debate. But it is a debate, after more than 200 years, that really needs settling now, finally (thank to out-of-control partisan politics)? I think the Supreme Court needs to rule on the Constitutionality of the pro forma sessions, and remove Harry Reid's "I'll show you!" changes to the Constitution. But other than that they need to leave things alone, and they won't. This gets the Supreme Court a little too much in the other branches of government, and smears the separation or powers a little.

 

[chefdennis]

Reading this thread and talking to a few friends today, it really does look as most people have a concern with barrys over reach (with the exception of a few) but my bet is that while the Republicans whine, chances are the aren't going to do a thing about it...So with that in mind, I thought that maybe someone might want to apply for a job with this new agency.

Here is "part" of the job posting, you can read all of it at the link posted below...Oh but you might have to relocate...

http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306225500

Job Title:Invitations Coordinator

Agency:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Sub Agency: CFPB - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Job Announcement Number:12-CFPB-145X

SALARY RANGE: $53,500.00 to $102,900.00 / Per Year
OPEN PERIOD: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 to Saturday, January 07, 2012
SERIES & GRADE: CN-0301-04
POSITION INFORMATION: Full-time - Excepted service time-limited Appointment NTE 12 months; may be extended up to July 20, 2015
PROMOTION POTENTIAL:04
DUTY LOCATIONS: 1 vacancy(s) - Washington DC Metro Area, DC

WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED: Applications will be accepted from U.S. citizens.

JOB SUMMARY:
Do you want to be a leader in your field at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) - a groundbreaking organization solely devoted to the economic strength and vitality of American Families? Do you want to play an important role in making consumer financial markets work for all American families? Do you want to challenge yourself and others? If you answer "Yes", then we have a career for you! CFPB professionals have unparalleled opportunities to expand horizons for themselves and for the nation. Be one of the founding members of an agency that will make a difference in the lives of everyday American families!

This position is located in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of External Affairs. The Office of External Affairs is responsible for coordination of all external communication, with a focus on raising awareness of consumer issues through activities, messages, and interactions with Public Relations, Media, Communities, Industries, and Stakeholders. You will support management of CFPB's participation in external events by developing and maintaining databases and event calendar and providing advice and guidance on consideration of invitations.

This position is being filled under CFPB's excepted service authority. This excepted service, time-limited position may be eligible for conversion to a permanent, excepted service appointment. Appointment under this authority does not convey competitive status.


BENEFITS:

Our comprehensive benefits are among the most generous in the federal government. They include:

Challenging and rewarding work, opportunities for advancement, competitive salaries, bonuses and incentive awards

Ten paid holidays, 13 days of sick leave, and 13 to 26 days of vacation time each year

Access to comprehensive health, vision, dental, life, and long-term care insurance programs that may be continued after you retire

A wide choice of health insurance plans, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and no waiting periods. We pay a substantial amount (up to 75%) of the health insurance premiums.

Participation in the Federal Reserve Retirement and Thrift Plans; or continued participation in the Civil Service Retirement System or Federal Employees Retirement System.

Public Transit Incentive program (PTIP)

Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

Health Unit Services

Emergency Child Care Service (Contracted Service)

Fitness Center Access

Learn more about federal benefits programs at: USAJOBS - Resource Center

 

[Pilgrim]

Don't you think its a big deal? Does it really matter what the appointment was? If it had been a Supreme Court Justice would it be important? Will it be okay if a President decides that Congress is not working because of deadlock and deems them to be not in Session.

That gets rid of the checks and balances thingy.

I'm thinking (could be wrong) that you feel that there are larger fish to fry right now, but we need to pay attention to the whole picture, right?

Here's something to think about for the "doubting Thomases": these appointments are relatively small deals - but they set a possibly significant precedent. It the GOP lets this get by in the perceived interest of "just getting along" they will be making a huge mistake. What the Republicans need is some leaders that stand solidly for their conservative principles and are not afraid of confrontation with liberals and their sycophants in the MSM. They need to realize that "compromise" does not mean "agreement to Democratic terms". Barack Hussein Obama is the weakest and most lightly regarded president since Jimmy Carter, and has the worst record in modern history. The GOP needs to realize this and take advantage of his screw-ups at every opportunity.

 

[Turtle]

Here's something to think about for the "doubting Thomases": these appointments are relatively small deals - but they set a possibly significant precedent. It the GOP lets this get by in the perceived interest of "just getting along" they will be making a huge mistake. What the Republicans need is some leaders that stand solidly for their conservative principles and are not afraid of confrontation with liberals and their sycophants in the MSM. They need to realize that "compromise" does not mean "agreement to Democratic terms". Barack Hussein Obama is the weakest and most lightly regarded president since Jimmy Carter, and has the worst record in modern history. The GOP needs to realize this and take advantage of his screw-ups at every opportunity.

You're really hangin' tough on that "us versus them" thing, huh. This isn't a left v. right thing, it's a constitutional thing.

The GOP was outraged, but didn't take advantage of Harry Reid's screwup when he first started the pro forma thing, because they realized they could do it, too. That was more of a branch v. branch thing than it was a left v. right thing, and it gave the Senate an upper hand over the President. But now that's come back to bite them in the butt, so they're really outraged, especially because it's a Democrat in the White House who is biting them.

The GOP screwed the pooch when they failed to push the initial Harry Reid subversion of the President's Constitutional powers, because the Court would have only ruled on that one issue alone. Now, they'll push it (because they're stupid) and the Court will end up ruling on three different but related issues, giving the Court the upper hand over both of the other two branches of government.

If the GOP takes full advantage of this as you want them to, that will come back to bite them in the butt, too.

 

[Pilgrim]

You're really hangin' tough on that "us versus them" thing, huh. This isn't a left v. right thing, it's a constitutional thing.

It's an election year so the "us vs. them" factor is magnified, especially considering the current president and the need for his defeat. True, it's a constitutional thing and in the long run that's more important. True, the GOP shoulda' handled it differently when Reid first started it. Right now they need to deal with the situation that's teed up for them. As additional info, this came out recently from the Heritage Foundation (bold emphasis mine):

In addition to the strong Constitutional argument against the President’s actions, there are several signs that the President’s interpretation of recess appointments has not always been the same. As Andrew Grossman points out that several weeks ago, President Obama signed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut which had been passed by the Senate in a pro forma session. As Grossman explains if the Senate was actually on recess, it couldn’t have passed the bill and the President couldn’t have signed it.
And as the Washington Examiner noted, President Obama’s own deputy solicitor general admitted recess appointments can’t be made with the Senate in session during oral arguments before the Supreme Court last year.


An Abuse of Power: President Obama’s “Recess” Appointments

 

[Turtle]

The Heritage Foundation's points are very good points, and true, albeit motivated by politics rather than from a Constitutional perspective. The GOP certainly needs to handle this, but more importantly the Senate as a body needs to handle it. You've got the President deciding when the Senate is and is not in session (because it's not cut and dry). That's insane all around. Even more insane will be if the Senate lets him get away with it. But if the GOP goes after this on a partisan basis and can't get the Democrats on board, the only way it'll get settled is by The Court, and that'll be bad for everybody. They need to settle this in house (well, in Senate).

They need to get rid of the pro forma crap, because it will be argued that despite some business occasionally (rarely) getting during pro forma sessions, the reality is that the Senate isn't available to act on business during a pro forma session, and pro forma was expressly created and is primarily used to thwart a Constitutional power of the executive branch. We the People do not want the Court making that call.

It's far better if the Senate as a body and the President can settle this between them, rather than getting the Supreme Court involved. If The Court gets involved, they will literally be dictating "ways and means," thereby rendering the Executive and Legislative branches of government employees rather than independent contractors. Things have been relatively fine for well over 200 years, and now, suddenly, because of partisan stupidity, we are on the cusp of that happening.

I'm astonished that the Senate Democrats aren't just as outraged by this as the Senate Republicans are, which goes to show just how ingrained partisan bloodsport has become in Washington. And that's the scary part for all of us.

The best way to handle this is to just suck it up and ensure that it cannot happen again, by removing the pro forma sessions as an option, and then move on. If they remove any ambiguity as to whether or not they are in session, we'll all be better off. Because right now, what has happened can be argued on either side. Remove the ambiguity, it cannot be argued, and the Constitution rules. The Democrats screwed up huge with the pro forma sessions to begin with, and now the Republicans want to make matters even worse.

The Democrats stand up and say, "I've got a really bad idea!!", and the Republicans stand up and say, "And I can make it even shi*tier!!!!".

 

[tbubster]

The GOP certainly needs to handle this, but more importantly the Senate as a body needs to handle it. You've got the President deciding when the Senate is and is not in session (because it's not cut and dry). That's insane all around. Even more insane will be if the Senate lets him get away with it. But if the GOP goes after this on a partisan basis and can't get the Democrats on board, the only way it'll get settled is by The Court, and that'll be bad for everybody. They need to settle this in house (well, in Senate).

"[/I][/B].

A couple of you have made this point.Its a good point yet thats all it is because we all know that Reid will not let this happen.