Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to nominate three, including two Republicans, to labor board. Will Republicans filibuster? (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Laura please explain to the commenters here who (11+ / 0-)

    know nothing about the structure of the NLRB that the President is obligated, by law, to appoint two Republicans. The issue is not party, since the Democrats will control, the point is to get a total of at least three members of the board having valid appointments so that they have a quorum and therefore can make decisions.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:22:56 AM PDT

    •  By law or by custom? (n/t) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BrianParker14, roadbear, apimomfan2

      Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

      by milkbone on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:21:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By law. All independent regulatory agency (0+ / 0-)

        boards, whether 3,5, or 7 member boards, require a mix of members by party, with the President's party having the majority.

        The NLRB has five members. The President has all five before the Senate, 3 Ds and 2Rs.

        Further, affiant sayeth not.

        by Gary Norton on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:37:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure where you're getting that. (9+ / 0-)

          I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you explain or give a cite? If you want to use a partisan diversity requirement as a defining feature of independent regulatory agency vs. executive agency, I suppose that makes your statement true, but then the NLRB would not fall into the independent category. There's no such requirement in its governing statute, although it is clearly the practice and the effect has been the same.

          Unlike, say, the FERC statute's "Not more than three members of the Commission shall be members of the same political party" or the ITC's "Not more than three of the commissioners shall be members of the same political party, and in making appointments members of different political parties shall be appointed alternately as nearly as may be practicable," 29 USC 153(a) doesn't address partisan balance at all. Am I missing a statute apart from that?  

          I base this partly on Table 4 in Deconstructing Independent Agencies (And Executive Agencies), which gives a breakdown of agencies with and without statutory partisan balance requirements. But it's not my area, and I'm more than happy to be educated further.

        •  Gary Norton, which law? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paper Cup, rivercard, apimomfan2

          You've repeatedly made this assertion, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but help us out here by at least backing up the statement with some proof, eh?

          Just saying it and expecting everyone to take your word for it is pretty poor form, at best.

          *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

          by Rick Aucoin on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:31:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Gary Norton, which law is that? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paper Cup, apimomfan2

      You have said repeatedly that there is some law requiring the President to appoint two Republicans, but you have failed to actually provide any links to back up this assertion.

      I'm not saying you are wrong, but if you're going to make an assertion like that, it's traditional to back it up with some proof, you know

      I look forward to reading the statute in question, please do give us some links to it, thanks!

      *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

      by Rick Aucoin on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:16:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I said that most Independent Regulatory (0+ / 0-)

        Agencies that have boards or commissions are required to be bipartisan. Here is discussion of the boards and their structures including references to all the IRAs. As it says,

        most independent agencies have a statutory requirement of bipartisan membership on the commission, so the President cannot simply fill vacancies with members of his own political party.[3]
        There are many examples, which are linked there such as the CFTC, SEC, FEC, and virtually all on the list. THe NLRB has a little more confusing history, going back to the thirties, when it was initially non-partisan. But since the 80s it has been partisan with a majority being from the President's party

        Further, affiant sayeth not.

        by Gary Norton on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:44:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's nothing "confusing" about it. (0+ / 0-)

          You said the President can't simply fill vacancies with members of his own political party.

          And you're wrong, and you, just like TomP and all of the other insultingly arrogant excuse makers up and down this thread know you were wrong.

          But it's interesting to see how many are now trying to weasel out and say "Tradition!  It's tradition, and that's most important!"

          Like we're all conservatives around here who think "tradition" makes for a good god damn.

          Have a nice day.

          *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

          by Rick Aucoin on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:55:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He could appoint them but they would never (0+ / 0-)

            be confirmed. If you look at the history of the independent regulatory agencies that  have been created in the last four or five decades you will find that all have a statutory requirement for no more than a majority being of one political party.  the only exceptions him aware of our agencies that are ruled by members already appointed to cabinet positions or by a single number rather than a board commission.

            This is a concept that is embraced by both Republicans and Democrats. Independent regulatory agencies have vast powers because they are exempt from administration control. Their board members, once confirmed,  Serve for fixed terms that are generally five, six or seven years, and cannot be removed except under very strict circumstances. They are totally unlike members of the cabinet, who serve at the pleasure of the President.

            Given their quasi-legislative function, which was the subject of considerable litigation when the first ones were created, Republicans and Democrats of recognized that these agencies  should not have all members from a single party. There are a few, like the NLRB, which do not have statutes which expressly require that the board have no more than a majority of one party, but it does operate as if that were a requirement.

            Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate understand why it needs to be so. They will accept the consequences of three Democrats and two Republicans when a Democrat is in office, in exchange for not having five Republicans control the board when a Republican is President.

            Further, affiant sayeth not.

            by Gary Norton on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:09:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site