The Truth About Obama's Recess Appointment Power

does a legislative body need a quorum for the session to be valid?

WTF, you said something correct, "Good, maybe the Senate will start doing their job no matter the party of the President.". The Senate is sitting on top of a bunch of bills passed by the House since January of last year. I forget, who controls the Senate? Could it be SATAN!!! or maybe Harry Reid. Yes, the Senate that sat on hundreds of appointments by George Bush has not been doing it's job for some time now. How long has it been since they passed a budget? 1020 some days...
Then you went wrong when you blamed the Congress for not doing their job. Now we know that the Congress is made up of both the Senate and the House but most people go with the understanding that Congress is the House alone. So who are you blaming exactly? The Senate that is sitting on all those bills or the House that has passed several budgets, several jobs bills, and has nothing to do with appointments.

Every President has been doing this for years, and regardless of the party affiliation, it will continue.

Congress has a remedy, one that is spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution. That is Impeachment. If what the President did is truly illegal, then do it.

Fat Chance.

What if the president's party is in charge of the Senate? Just like Clinton. My former Congresswoman admitted that Clinton broke the law, that he was guilty of sexual harassment, that he convinced people to perjure themselves, and that he was reprehensible. When it came to voting she voted NOT GUILTY. That was her last term in office and her son was soundly beated when he tried for her office.

We only have to remember that the GOP Senators and Congressman went to the White House and told Nixon it was time to leave. When Clinton got impeached the democrats rallied around him at the White House.

Both Democrats and Republicans fail on a personal level from time to time (that we hear about) but as a party the Democrats will choose their party over the laws every time.

By the way, not every president has done this. Bush made a few recess apointments until Harry Reid and the democrats come up with this pro forma session. Bush never challenged that. So this is a Bush/Obama thing only. One went by perverted rules and the other was one of the perverts who made the rules and then broke them himself.

WTF, you said something correct, "Good, maybe the Senate will start doing their job no matter the party of the President.". The Senate is sitting on top of a bunch of bills passed by the House since January of last year. I forget, who controls the Senate? Could it be SATAN!!! or maybe Harry Reid. Yes, the Senate that sat on hundreds of appointments by George Bush has not been doing it's job for some time now. How long has it been since they passed a budget? 1020 some days...
Then you went wrong when you blamed the Congress for not doing their job. Now we know that the Congress is made up of both the Senate and the House but most people go with the understanding that Congress is the House alone. So who are you blaming exactly? The Senate that is sitting on all those bills or the House that has passed several budgets, several jobs bills, and has nothing to do with appointments.mispoke, should have said Senate. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I said a whole lot of shit that was correct, most of which went over your head. They need to start voting on these appointments. This is a murky part of law that needs to be cleared up.

A President deserves to have his appointments voted on. Not stalled and this recess appointment BS. No matter which party is in charge.

What I said, and I stand by it, is that I am glad Obama did it and I hope it makes it to the Supreme Court.

By the way, not every president has done this. Bush made a few recess apointments until Harry Reid and the democrats come up with this pro forma session. Bush never challenged that. So this is a Bush/Obama thing only. One went by perverted rules and the other was one of the perverts who made the rules and then broke them himself. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

read the whole link and ask me if you do not understand something. It is pretty simple but then again....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment


Examples and use
Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments. Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge subsequently attempted suicide and then resigned.
New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. In 1958, the CIA tried to pull off a coup in Damascus. When the Syrians expelled our ambassador, President Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated Charles W. Yost as the new ambassador. Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Potter Stewart.
George H. W. Bush appointed Lawrence Eagleburger Secretary of State during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger had in effect filled that role after James Baker resigned.
According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.[4]

Recess appointments are obviously nothing new; presidents of both parties have being making them for many years, and undoubtedly will be doing so for many more. In every case, of course, if the appointment turns out to be something of a disaster, the president and his party risk political backlash.

However, I think all the brouhaha over this deflects attention form a far more serious matter: Why is the CFPB being set up under the Federal Reserve instead of under Treasury, where I think it belongs? After all, the putative reason for the bureau's existence is to oversee such things as mortgages, car loans, credit cards, credit unions, and other consumer-related financial issues.

If it were under Treasury, it would at least fall under the broad oversight of a congressional committee. Of course, it might still be the case that no one would competently oversee it, but at least the structure would provide for that possibility. If it's organized under the Fed, it will of course never be subject to any oversight at all. Those folks don't allow any sunlight to be shone in their direction, and continue to refuse an audit of any kind. Additionally, no one will know what this agency's budget is.

I have heard that the media have not reported this, and that few people outside the world of finance even know about it. What set of bank lobbyists got this arranged, and to whose drums do you think the Federal Reserve marches?

It's hard for me to believe that anyone is going to try to defend this sort of non-transparency. Sneaking a potentially important agency into the exclusive purview of the Federal Reserve in the middle of the night while nobody's looking is not exactly my idea of responsible government.

I guess I was talking over WTFs head. I was not talking about recess appointments, I was talking about the more recent practice of pro forma sessions. I was trying to downplay the affair by saying Bush "made a few" appointments. Of course then I was also talking about after the pro forma sessions began under Harry Reid. You need to get your shit separate. Now do you understand or do I have to try again?

Recess appointments are obviously nothing new; presidents of both parties have being making them for many years, and undoubtedly will be doing so for many more. In every case, of course, if the appointment turns out to be something of a disaster, the president and his party risk political backlash.

However, I think all the brouhaha over this deflects attention form a far more serious matter: Why is the CFPB being set up under the Federal Reserve instead of under Treasury, where I think it belongs? After all, the putative reason for the bureau's existence is to oversee such things as mortgages, car loans, credit cards, credit unions, and other consumer-related financial issues.

If it were under Treasury, it would at least fall under the broad oversight of a congressional committee. Of course, it might still be the case that no one would competently oversee it, but at least the structure would provide for that possibility. If it's organized under the Fed, it will of course never be subject to any oversight at all. Those folks don't allow any sunlight to be shone in their direction, and continue to refuse an audit of any kind. Additionally, no one will know what this agency's budget is.

I have heard that the media have not reported this, and that few people outside the world of finance even know about it. What set of bank lobbyists got this arranged, and to whose drums do you think the Federal Reserve marches?

It's hard for me to believe that anyone is going to try to defend this sort of non-transparency. Sneaking a potentially important agency into the exclusive purview of the Federal Reserve in the middle of the night while nobody's looking is not exactly my idea of responsible government. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Now see this is news you can use. This is real BS. No freaking wonder the Repub's are making hay about the recess appointments. To cover the actual crime!

Good catch Capt.!

I guess I was talking over WTFs head. I was not talking about recess appointments, I was talking about the more recent practice of pro forma sessions. I was trying to downplay the affair by saying Bush "made a few" appointments. Of course then I was also talking about after the pro forma sessions began under Harry Reid. You need to get your shit separate. Now do you understand or do I have to try again? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I understood exactly wtf you were talking about.

My point was that the Senate should have a timely vote.

Without the timely vote you had recess appointments.

Now you have pro forma sessions , which are complete BS, to prevent recess appointments.

I realize that Harry Reid started it. It is BS.

So Obama did WTF he or any President eventually had to do. Which is bring the Courts in on it.


You argue really stupid shit. You bring up Obama arguing the exact opposite while in the Senate. He has a different job now in case you didn't realize it.

No different than a former DA becoming a Defense Lawyer. Would you expect the former DA to handle the case just like he did when he was a DA. Trying to proscute his client instead of defending him? Talk about shit going over one's headbn...........

BUNCH OF IDIOTS

It's hard for me to believe that anyone is going to try to defend this sort of non-transparency. Sneaking a potentially important agency into the exclusive purview of the Federal Reserve in the middle of the night while nobody's looking is not exactly my idea of responsible government. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Actually all of this was already agreed to by both parties. The appointment of someone to run the agency was all that was left to be done. On orders from people such as the Koch brothers the Republicans suddenly blocked the appointment not because they had any objections to the person nominated, they just did not want the agency to go into operation or rather people such as the Koch brothers did not want it to go into operation.

Actually all of this was already agreed to by both parties. The appointment of someone to run the agency was all that was left to be done. On orders from people such as the Koch brothers the Republicans suddenly blocked the appointment not because they had any objections to the person nominated, they just did not want the agency to go into operation or rather people such as the Koch brothers did not want it to go into operation. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Two different issues Louie.

I agree with you , it is a BS move but CM brings up a totally different point. We have all seen the moral hazard that the Fed has imposed on their friends!

However, I think all the brouhaha over this deflects attention form a far more serious matter: Why is the CFPB being set up under the Federal Reserve instead of under Treasury, where I think it belongs? After all, the putative reason for the bureau's existence is to oversee such things as mortgages, car loans, credit cards, credit unions, and other consumer-related financial issues.


I have heard that the media have not reported this, and that few people outside the world of finance even know about it. What set of bank lobbyists got this arranged, and to whose drums do you think the Federal Reserve marches?

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

WTF gets this issue, and pointed out that Big Louie is deflecting attention from what ought to be considered the germane point here -- or at the very least is conflating two completely separate issues.

Louie, I would suggest that you set aside the partisan lens and take a more critical look at what's going on here. Yeah, I know that a lot of people reflexively think that everything their party does must be wonderful, while all the other party does is engage in corruption, recklessness, or irresponsibily.

But many people in the leadership of both of our dysfunctional parties are clueless, irresponsible, or corrupt. Anyone who doesn't realize that needs to start paying more attention.

Some frauds and egregious acts of irresponsibility are truly bipartisan in nature. Just look at Garn.-St. Germain and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, for example.

Actually Obama pretends to be a constitional lawyer and he took an oath as a Senator and President to protect the Constitution. Nope, he has no ethical out for this. He is a hypocrit and a liar.