Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

[Shadow]

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- In a move that has angered Republicans, President Obama on Wednesday announced he's making a recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, sidestepping the Senate confirmation process.
"Today, I'm appointing Richard as America's consumer watchdog," Obama said in a speech in Ohio, where Cordray served as attorney general. "That means he'll be in charge of one thing: Looking out for the best interests of American consumers."

Last month, the Senate failed to muster enough votes to take up confirmation of Cordray to run the consumer bureau, with all but one Republican voting against the move. At the time, President Obama hinted (http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/08/news/economy/consumer_bureau_confirmation/index.htm?iid=EL) that was considering such a recess appointment.
"When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them," Obama said. "I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve."
With a recess appointment, Cordray can serve through the end of 2013.
News of the impending recess appointment spurred a flurry of angry statements from GOP leaders who have been trying to block a recess appointment for more than seven months.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/consumer_bureau_cordray/index.htm?hpt=hp_bn3

[avatar4321]

The only problem is the Senate isn't technically on recess.

[CSM]

First of all, I doubt seriously that ANY political appointee will be looking out for the best interests of Americans in any way, shape or form. Second, party ideology is what every politician takes into consideration and has primary impact on everything they do (that includes the President). The day when politicians really care more about what is best for this country and its citizens than they do about staying in office and accumulating power is looooong gone.

[Gunny]

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- In a move that has angered Republicans, President Obama on Wednesday announced he's making a recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, sidestepping the Senate confirmation process.
"Today, I'm appointing Richard as America's consumer watchdog," Obama said in a speech in Ohio, where Cordray served as attorney general. "That means he'll be in charge of one thing: Looking out for the best interests of American consumers."

Last month, the Senate failed to muster enough votes to take up confirmation of Cordray to run the consumer bureau, with all but one Republican voting against the move. At the time, President Obama hinted (http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/08/news/economy/consumer_bureau_confirmation/index.htm?iid=EL) that was considering such a recess appointment.
"When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them," Obama said. "I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve."
With a recess appointment, Cordray can serve through the end of 2013.
News of the impending recess appointment spurred a flurry of angry statements from GOP leaders who have been trying to block a recess appointment for more than seven months.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/consumer_bureau_cordray/index.htm?hpt=hp_bn3

Which makes me wonder why anyone here is arguing about how to read the Constitution. That clown in the White House is going to do what he wants no matter what.

[ConHog]

Am I reading this wrong, or is Obama using a recess appointment to appoint someone who was in fact denied the job by Congressional vote?


I don't have a problem with recess appointments, hey they ARE in the COTUS; but a guy who's been denied the post by Congress should be ineligible. Or at the very least the POTUS should have the good graces not to appoint him/her. Of course we all know Obama has no grace, so.............

[Gunny]

Am I reading this wrong, or is Obama using a recess appointment to appoint someone who was in fact denied the job by Congressional vote?


I don't have a problem with recess appointments, hey they ARE in the COTUS; but a guy who's been denied the post by Congress should be ineligible. Or at the very least the POTUS should have the good graces not to appoint him/her. Of course we all know Obama has no grace, so.............

You're reading it right. He couldn't get enough votes in the Senate last month, so he just waited for Congress to go into recess to do what he wanted anyway.

[Nukeman]

You're reading it right. He couldn't get enough votes in the Senate last month, so he just waited for Congress to go into recess to do what he wanted anyway.yup... Chicago style politics at its finest.. This guy can not leave soon enough....

[Gunny]

yup... Chicago style politics at its finest.. This guy can not leave soon enough....

Agreed. The way the GOP's going though, I wouldn't bet money on it. Too much divisiveness among conservatives/the right.

[ConHog]

Obama is hardly the first President to use these tactics. BUT the guy ran on a platform of doing things differently, more openly and turns out he's just doing the same things.

Now those of us who didn't vote for him can't be, and aren't , disappointed to see him doing the same things for we knew he was lying then; but you would think that those who supported him precisely because of his promises to do things differently would be disappointed and would be voicing their displeasure.

Then of course there are those who were going to vote for Obama no matter what and no doubt they don't care what they guy does, they will vote for him again.

[Gunny]

Obama is hardly the first President to use these tactics. BUT the guy ran on a platform of doing things differently, more openly and turns out he's just doing the same things.

Now those of us who didn't vote for him can't be, and aren't , disappointed to see him doing the same things for we knew he was lying then; but you would think that those who supported him precisely because of his promises to do things differently would be disappointed and would be voicing their displeasure.

Then of course there are those who were going to vote for Obama no matter what and no doubt they don't care what they guy does, they will vote for him again.

You're kidding. right?

How many times during the Democratic primaries did he get caught flat-out lying? He didn't even win the primary. Hillary did. Two Democratic superdelegates voted AGAINST the majority vote of their constituencies and gave O-blah-blah the primary. Sounds like taxation without representation to me.

I'm sure they're justifying this with "Bush lied".:laugh:

[jimnyc]

This is absolutely awesome news. Regardless of where this goes, legally speaking, it will certainly be used against Obama in the election, and I'm sure whoever his opponent is will make it clear that Obama has no respect for congress and/or the constitution. Hell, maybe others don't either, but none are as blatant about things as Obama. This was a really stupid move on his part in an election year.

[ConHog]

This is absolutely awesome news. Regardless of where this goes, legally speaking, it will certainly be used against Obama in the election, and I'm sure whoever his opponent is will make it clear that Obama has no respect for congress and/or the constitution. Hell, maybe others don't either, but none are as blatant about things as Obama. This was a really stupid move on his part in an election year.

Obama is a lot of things , but stupid isn't one of them.

This was pure ARROGANCE on his part.

"I know what's best for the country more than the Senate does, and by God the people will stand behind me as I change this country my way"


and the worst part is, his followers will eat it up.

[Gunny]

This is absolutely awesome news. Regardless of where this goes, legally speaking, it will certainly be used against Obama in the election, and I'm sure whoever his opponent is will make it clear that Obama has no respect for congress and/or the constitution. Hell, maybe others don't either, but none are as blatant about things as Obama. This was a really stupid move on his part in an election year.

The left will do the usual by just ignoring the topic until it goes away. When a Dem does wrong, the silence from the left is deafening.

[fj1200]

Two Democratic superdelegates voted AGAINST the majority vote of their constituencies and gave O-blah-blah the primary.

Superdelegates don't have to vote with the primary results because their super.

[Abbey Marie]

As Avi pointed out, the Senate isn't in recess. So, Obama's avoidance of Congress' consent is even more egregious.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg010512dAPR20120105074540.jpg

[red states rule]

Am I reading this wrong, or is Obama using a recess appointment to appoint someone who was in fact denied the job by Congressional vote?


I don't have a problem with recess appointments, hey they ARE in the COTUS; but a guy who's been denied the post by Congress should be ineligible. Or at the very least the POTUS should have the good graces not to appoint him/her. Of course we all know Obama has no grace, so.............

There is only one problem CH - the Senate is NOT is recess and even Obama says the Senate is not in recess




Defenders of President Obama’s unprecedented (http://www.debatepolicy.com/2012/01/04/a-tyrannical-abuse-of-power-obama-attempts-to-appoint-cordray-to-cfpb/)“recess” appointments of Richard Cordray to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members to the National Labor Relations Board argue that the Constitution is vague on when Congress is in session (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-radical-republican-tactic-behind-obamas-controversial-nominations/2012/01/05/gIQAeKLTcP_blog.html) and that the President can therefore take a “functionalist” approach (http://volokh.com/2012/01/04/recess-appointment-of-richard-cordray-despite-pro-forma-sessions/)that considers whether the Senate is available to vote on nominations.

Yet even the President doesn’t buy that argument.

Proof is that on December 23, President Obama signed (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-23/politics/politics_congress-payroll-tax-cut_1_short-term-extension-tax-holiday-house-gop-leaders?_s=PM:POLITICS)a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. He said that Congress passed the bill “in the nick of time” and that it was “a make-or-break moment for the middle class in this country.” The compromise extension really did come through at the last minute, but in a different sense: most members of the Senate had already departed Washington, D.C.

That’s why on December 17, the Senate agreed to an order instituting “pro forma” sessions, of the kind the President now claims are actually recess. (See the PDF of the Congressional Record here (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/CREC-2011-12-17-pt1-PgS8783-7.pdf).) But it was at one of those sessions, on December 23, that the Senate passed the payroll tax cut extension that the President signed into law later that day. (Again, see the Congressional Record entry (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/CREC-2011-12-23-pt1-PgS8789-4.pdf).)

Of course, if the Senate was actually on recess that day, it couldn’t have passed the bill, and the President couldn’t have signed it into law. (The President has not claimed—at least, not yet—that he can enact laws that have not passed Congress.) But in that case, the President chose to respect the Senate’s own view as to whether it was open for business.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/05/even-obama-agrees-that-the-senate-was-not-in-recess/

[ConHog]

There is only one problem CH - the Senate is NOT is recess and even Obama says the Senate is not in recess

Right, I seen that after I made my initial post. Makes this even more bizarre. How can the guy legally take the office?

[Abbey Marie]

Right, I seen that after I made my initial post. Makes this even more bizarre. How can the guy legally take the office?

There needs to be a lawsuit when he does. Unless there can be an injunction first.

[red states rule]

Right, I seen that after I made my initial post. Makes this even more bizarre. How can the guy legally take the office?

He is a liberal

The law is a mere detail

After all the ends justify the means CH when it comes to all that hope and change Obama wants to give us

[ConHog]

There needs to be a lawsuit when he does. Unless there can be an injunction first.

I would think that IF Obama really does appoint him a recess appointment when the Senate actually isn't IN recess that a court would step in and say no.

[red states rule]

I would think that IF Obama really does appoint him a recess appointment when the Senate actually isn't IN recess that a court would step in and say no.


$50 says a liberal Judge will rule it is OK. No point in letting the US Constitution get n the way of more hope and change

[ConHog]

$50 says a liberal Judge will rule it is OK. No point in letting the US Constitution get n the way of more hope and change


I wouldn't swear it, but I THINK that issue would have to go directly to the SCOTUS.

[red states rule]

I wouldn't swear it, but I THINK that issue would have to go directly to the SCOTUS.

OK $50 says I can name you the four liberal Judges there that would go side with Obama on this one

Hint: they are the same ones who will say Obamacare is fine and the Feds can force you to buy a specific product/service

[red states rule]

I suspect BP, Gabby, TM, and othe liberals would all say what Nancy Pelosi is saying about the appointment

They would be proud of Obama




At a Capitol press conference on Thursday a reporter asked Pelosi: “Was the Congress in recess yesterday, and are you at all worried that President Obama has set a precedent that may make it easy for a president in the future to circumvent Congress when making appointments?”

Pelosi said: “I’m very proud of the president of the United States and the appointments that he made yesterday. I’m very glad that he did and it’s important for the American people to know what challenges face him as he tries to provide leadership for the agencies of government, which have been voted on by the Congress, are part of our public policy.”

“I especially want to address the Consumer Protection agency,” she said. “In our Wall Street reform bill, we had the greatest consumer protections in the history of our country. The Republicans want to block the appointment, not because they don’t think the person is qualified, but because they don’t want that agency to function. So, I’m proud of what the President did.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-obama-nullifying-constitutions-confirmation-mandate-i-m-proud-what-president-did

[sundaydriver]

It looks like the GOP was just outplayed on this. I read the Senate schedule and it's not in session again until today (Jan 6). By getting a few Senators together for one fuckin minute to claim a "pro forma" sessions was just a technicality to claim the Senate was in session when everyone can see that they were not. You lose :blah:

<CENTER nodeIndex="22">Senate

</CENTER>
<CENTER nodeIndex="24">Chamber Action

</CENTER>
The Senate met in pro forma session to convene the second session of the 112th Congress at ., 12:01:32 p.m and adjourned at 12:02:13 p.m. until 11 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2012.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r112:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20120103 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r112:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20120103))

[ConHog]

It looks like the GOP was just outplayed on this. I read the Senate schedule and it's not in session again until today (Jan 6). By getting a few Senators together for one fuckin minute to claim a "pro forma" sessions was just a technicality to claim the Senate was in session when everyone can see that they were not. You lose :blah:

<CENTER nodeIndex="22">Senate

</CENTER>
<CENTER nodeIndex="24">Chamber Action

</CENTER>
The Senate met in pro forma session to convene the second session of the 112th Congress at ., 12:01:32 p.m and adjourned at 12:02:13 p.m. until 11 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2012.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r112:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20120103 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r112:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20120103))


There's exactly what is wrong with this country. Most don't think in terms of "is this both legal and the right thing to do" , they only think of " can my side win?"

Pathetic. He appointed a guy who the Senate voted NOT to confirm. He KNEW this guy wasn't who the Senate wanted, and that is not at all within the spirit of the recess nomination.

[sundaydriver]

There's exactly what is wrong with this country. Most don't think in terms of "is this both legal and the right thing to do" , they only think of " can my side win?"

Pathetic. He appointed a guy who the Senate voted NOT to confirm. He KNEW this guy wasn't who the Senate wanted, and that is not at all within the spirit of the recess nomination.

The Senate refused to consider Obama's first nomination and FILIBUSTERED Cordrays nomination knowing he had the votes for the nomination.

[ConHog]

The Senate refused to consider Obama's first nomination and FILIBUSTERED Cordrays nomination.

A CLEAR indication that they didn't want him. No?

[sundaydriver]

A CLEAR indication that they didn't want him. No?

NO. The actual hold up is because some want more Congressional oversite of the agency.

[red states rule]

It looks like the GOP was just outplayed on this. I read the Senate schedule and it's not in session again until today (Jan 6). By getting a few Senators together for one fuckin minute to claim a "pro forma" sessions was just a technicality to claim the Senate was in session when everyone can see that they were not. You lose :blah:

<CENTER nodeIndex="22">Senate

</CENTER>
<CENTER nodeIndex="24">Chamber Action

</CENTER>
The Senate met in pro forma session to convene the second session of the 112th Congress at ., 12:01:32 p.m and adjourned at 12:02:13 p.m. until 11 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2012.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r112:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20120103 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r112:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20120103))


Last I checked Dems are running the enate and Obama admits the Senate is not is recess - but he makes the appointment anyway

Dems are giddy over thius, but had a shit fit when Bush did it

Amazing what that "D" at the end of Obama's name makes

[red states rule]

NO. The actual hold up is because some want more Congressional oversite of the agency.

This is the libs version of compromise

Dems get everything they want and R's get NOTHING

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/120104recessRGB20120105015111.jpg

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb010412dAPR20120106024537.jpg

[ConHog]

This is the libs version of compromise

Dems get everything they want and R's get NOTHING

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/120104recessRGB20120105015111.jpg

You advocate the exact same thing only in reverse. How is that different?