While the Boeing and quickie-election crises have been addressed for the time being, the political fights over the National Labor Relations Board continue — a predictable consequence of the law that created the board.
The board is supposed to contain five members, with no more than three of the same party. Instead, it’s down to three members total, and one of their terms will end soon. The president has nominated two Democrats and a Republican to round out the board, but Republicans are blocking confirmation in the Senate, hoping to deny the board its three-member quorum. There’s fear the president could appoint the two Democrats during a congressional recess.
All 47 Senate Republicans have joined together to ask the president not to do this. The text of the letter they sent is after the break.
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC
RE: NLRB Nominations
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to urge you not to undermine the Senate’s advice and consent role by attempting to place your recently announced nominees to National Labor Relations Board, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, in those positions through recess appointments. Moreover, we urge to instead allow for a full and thorough review of their qualifications through regular order in the Senate.
Appointments to the NLRB have traditionally been made through prior agreement of both parties to ensure that any group of nominees placed on the board represents an appropriate political and philosophical balance. Indeed, the very statutory design of the Board is meant to ensure a basic level of bipartisanship in the appointment of Members. As you are undoubtedly aware, appointments to Board that depart from this tradition have resulted in some of the most contentious, divisive struggles we face in the Senate. Your controversial recess appointment of NLRB Member Craig Becker is an example of an NLRB nominee having been appointed over the objection of the Senate and the result of that decision has been unending controversy throughout Member Becker’s entire term on the Board, which has undermined the credibility of the entire NLRB.
We urge you to avoid attempting to give your latest NLRB nominees – Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin – recess appointments at any point, especially during the mandatory adjournment between sessions of the 112th Congress, which will undoubtedly be very brief. While some have publicly suggested doing so would be an appropriate course of action with regard to other nominations, it would, at the very least, set a dangerous precedent that would most certainly be exploited in future cases to further marginalize the Senate’s role in confirming nominees and could needlessly provoke a constitutional conflict between the Senate and the White House.
We are certain that we all want to avoid any further conflict over additional recess appointments to the NLRB. It would be especially unfortunate if the Senate was never given an opportunity to fully explore their qualifications and suitability to be Members of the NLRB through a careful and deliberative hearings and confirmation process.
Thank you for your attention regarding this important matter.
"but Republicans are blocking confirmation in the Senate, hoping to deny the board its three-member quorum."
If that is what they're doing, then it's hard to see where they have a leg to stand on with this letter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Bush was in office and Reid had the Senate, he wasted taxpayer money with daily pro forma sessions to prevent Bush exercising such a horrendous abuse of power.
But of course now is different, so Obama is welcome to have all the czars and unconfirmed people he wants running our lives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not the point. If the Republicans are purposely playing games with the nominations to manipulate the NLRB makeup, as what RVB says suggests they are, then they're not in a position to "ask" Obama not to play games to manipulate the NLRB makeup.
Doesn't matter what anyone did before or will do in the future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see where RVB suggests Republicans are trying to affect the makeup. I suspect they want to shut down the NLRB temporarily as payback for the Boeing-SC debacle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they are playing payback games then they have abandoned the advise and consent role. Give the nominees an up or down vote. If you won't do that then recess appointments are perfectly proper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't he just nominate the two democrats last week? Meanwhile the Senate has had the nomination of Terence Flynn since January and has simply not taken it up,
Who is it that is delaying things?
And if Obama were to make recess appointment after failing to provide anything like a reasonable amount of time for the Senate to deliberate, I would say it was an abuse of the process. He had more than enough time to send forward a name and simply chose NOT to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid is right. All they have to do is confirm (or at least allow a vote) and there will not need to be recess appointments...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe'll do it. The raw exercise of power is the Alinsky way.
d(^_^)b
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
How do you justify that? The process is the president submits, the congress approves or rejects. The GOP refusing to do its job is okay, but a recess appointment is a 'raw exercise of power?' Don't you see what's wrong with that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> The president has nominated two Democrats and a Republican to round out the board, but Republicans are blocking confirmation in the Senate, hoping to deny the board its three-member quorum.
I'm bewildered by this - why is it a 'controversy'? Isn't this just the Republicans playing games? I get why they would hope to 'deny the board its three-member quorum' - I just don't get why anyone would think that was a reasonable way for public servants to behave. They should reject the candidates if they don't like them - sitting on them pretty clearly justifies a recess appointment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgain, more evidence of the Republicans working very hard and doing their best. The fashion has accepted a very distorted view of the GOP. Granted, with disastrous types like the Maverick, it is understandable the frustrations and questions grew. However, unfortunately as the case with fashion, the balloon grows to over the top emotive embraces becoming counter productive and ultimately self destructive.
Hopefully, we will have a real Majority in both Legislative Bodies, powerful enough in the House and Senate without any possibility of Democratic Partisan obstruction as was the case in 2002 to 2006. With a Republican President, we may be able to return this Nation back to sanity - especially filling the SC with more sound Justices.
Those who are stuck with this "establishment" warfare stick, selling populist divides, are only part of the problem these days. We have to rise above and grasp the enormous opportunity, to empower Our best interests. Not enable the Democratic Party yet again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith 41 Democratic senators and Obama in the White House (or not), why would you expect anything to be different?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the House doesn't adjourn, or adjourns very briefly, can Obama do a recess appointment?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm guessing of course that the author of this post and all of those Republican's were also against every single one of Bush's recess appointments, correct? (And before someone responds, I think Bush had every right to appoint whoever he wanted during congressional recesses.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe House repubs are not adjourning so the Pres cant make recess appointments because Congress as a whole has not adjourned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe power to make recess appointments has been abused for a very long time, by both parties. I believe that such power was vested in the President in the spirit that such an appointment might be necessary for the orderly conduct of the Republic's affairs. Here is an overview of the recess appointment process, including some numbers:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehttp://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BP\W%3B%20P%20%20%0A
I have no idea how to fix the process, but I have certainly been offended by it from time-to-time. Bill Lann Lee comes to mind.
What's Ver Bruggen's point? That the Republican members of the Senate can write a letter? Not much of a story there. The real problem, as BK observes, is that the GOP doesn't want the NLRB to do the job it has been legislated to do. The Board, in full 5-member mode, is actually a fairly moderate agency. It operates both as a full board or in 3-member panels. To reach majority decisions, its members have to find a center, and they usually do. In that sense, by hobbling the Board with less than full membership, the Senate allows exaggerated authority to the president's party. That phenomenon was seen during the Bush administration when the Dems blocked some appointments and it is being seen again as the GOP blocks Obama's. Curiously, it has been the GOP which has blocked Obama's agreed-upon GOP nominee because they don't want to also deal with the Dem nominees. The package the letter speaks of has been available for months. The blockage demonstrates that the supposed views of the nominees are irrelevant; The GOP simply wants to obstruct the Board and shut it down.
That attitude will certainly result in recess appointments and the GOP leadership knows it. They want the fight for political reasons. But, the GOP is being very short-sighted here. In addition, they are trying to prevent Solomon from becoming the Senate-approved General Counsel. He's acting now, but is not a recess appointment.
The GOP intransigence here is self-defeating. It will backfire on them. When labor disputes go into the streets, and the NLRB is not there to moderate them, the nation will suffer and the GOP will be to blame. Return to pre-1935? Not a good idea.
So where is Ver Bruggen on any of this? Silent. 'S'matter, Bud? Afraid to do the analysis or speak the truth? Cut the story short without any discussion or conclusion? That's not the National Review I know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama should be at least as assertive in making recess appointments as George W. Bush was. Of course he should make recess appointments, just as any Republican president would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd David of course supports pro-forma sessions in the House to prevent recess appointments, just as any Democrat congress would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama ought to simply declare that the Senate is in recess when the Senate is in fact in recess, regardless of whether the House does.
Nice try though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse