Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama making recess appointments to labor board, again braving GOP outrage (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i think if there are valid (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sacto Joe, gramofsam1, CupofTea, rabel, JVolvo

    arguments to be made on either side, it's not hypocrisy to make them at different times to the extent of your advantage.  As i understand it, though, Obama's bit of cleverness is making the recess appointments between the pro forma sessions, nunc pro tunc.  If David Addington's views of executive power were too broad and not enough deep, that's not my fault for opposing the claims he made.  McConnell can have all the pro forma sessions he wants, but as long as there's more than one, recess appt.  what's more, as the democrats were much more willing to hold votes, and where Bush wanted to use these sessions to nominate people previously rejected, not ad  in this case not voted on, the notion that one is somehow inequitable is different.  even then, "can't" is different from "shouldn't."

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 12:55:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So, you'll be ok if, say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, VClib

      President Romney does the same thing with a nominee that can't get through the Senate?  

      And either the President has the Constitutional power, or he doesn't.  If Bush didn't have the Constitutional power to recess appoint when the Democrats were holding pro forma sessions, neither does President Obama.  A President's Constitutional authority is not dependent on whether the opposition is "behaving" (i.e., engaging in filibusters of appointments).  

      •  would i be (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rja, CupofTea, sagesource, rabel

        is the type of comment that obscures more than it clarifies.  i won't necessarily think it's unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean i think it would be appropriate or unobjectionable.  it would really depend on the appointment.  Saying something is unconstitutional is not the only possible objection to something.  if the opposition rejects someone, as with Bolton, and Bush appoints him anyway, raise a fuss.  if the opposition behaves like jackasses, they have only themselves to blame.  i suppose the court could always say there isn't Constitutional power to recess appoint someone, but i don't recall ever making the argument that Bush couldn't do it, just that it was a dick move.  I don't think the statements out of GOP leadership today were well developed constitutional arguments, just threats to somehow be more obstructionist.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:12:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Loge, if this is litigated, (0+ / 0-)

          and I think it will be, there will be a bright line, either the technique of these pro-forma sessions counts, or it doesn't. If they don't count then Presidents can make any recess appointments during scheduled Senate Holidays and vacations. There will be no gray.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 02:36:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  true, but not responsive (0+ / 0-)

            even if it's legal, the validity of using the practice (and the validity of an objection) might rest on other bases.  If it's later found illegal, that doesn't mean that arguments that (a) it was legal or (b) it was a valid response to obstructionism were either unreasonable or hypocritical.  i think this, like the war powers act's constitutionality, won't actually be litigated.  both parties and branches like some ambiguity because they never know what side they'll be on in the future.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 02:49:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let the Rethuglicans litigate. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              davboyce

              Regardless of outcome, it will refocus attention on their intransigence (read treason).  Good PR for the President in the months ahead.  Otherwise, he would simply have made these appointments in the moments between the gavel strikes.

              The bottom 1% are the most egregious victims of Wall Street's class war. We 99% must not abandon them.

              by NM Ward Chair on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:16:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  NMWC - intransigence is not treason (0+ / 0-)

                Look it up, it's right in the Constitution.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:41:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I call it treason when elected officials refuse (0+ / 0-)

                  do their sworn duty.

                  The bottom 1% are the most egregious victims of Wall Street's class war. We 99% must not abandon them.

                  by NM Ward Chair on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 07:21:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No member of Congress (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lyta

                    has a sworn duty to vote in favor of any legislation, or pass any law, or approve any nominee. All they have to do is obey the Constitution. A member of Congress, like Ron Paul as an example (who I think is a nut job) has every right to oppose just about everything in sight and do everything legally permissible to thwart the President. That's politics, not treason.  

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 07:30:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Loge - it may not be litigated in this term (0+ / 0-)

              The GOP may decide to wait until the 2012 election and see who wins. If the President is re-elected then they will litigate this issue. If a GOP President wins they will be happy to abuse the new custom. It would be interesting to see if the Dems would litigate it at that time. My guess is they would.

              I do think you will see another party, not any member of Congress, specifically litigate the Cordray appointment. According to Adam the Dodd Frank statute specifically requires the head of the CFPB to be approved by the Senate, beyond the normal advise and consent requirement.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:49:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site