Politico breaks the news that the president has appointed no fewer than three members to the activist National Labor Relations Board:
President Barack Obama made more controversial recess appointments Wednesday, filling three open seats on the National Labor Relations Board just hours after he appointed Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The three appointees — Sharon Block, Terence F. Flynn, and Richard Griffin — will take their place on a board that has been sharply attacked by Republicans for favoring labor.
“The American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day – whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans,” Obama said in announcing the appointments.
This is the president declaring war on the House and Senate GOP. Expect lots of power-grabbing executive orders to follow.
Hey look! Tom Friedman is going to get his wish for Chinese-style totalitarianism. I am sure the wise rulers The One will put in place will fix everything.
Joking aside (joking?) could this be an attempt by The One to distract Republicans? Red meat for MoveOn.org who 1 month into Congressional hearings on this will be running ad telling us to "Move On"? This is Obama's blue dress? The One campaigning against Congressional nitpickers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCut off the NLRB funding, and attach it to the payroll tax cut extension. And for once be willing to fight and stand together.
Enough is enough from this monster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcuse me? This monster? Partisanship aside (and believe me I no more agree with all of Obama's policy than I did Bush or Clinton) you are speaking about the sitting President of the United States of America. Have some respect. That kind of rhetoric has no place coming out of the mouth of a U.S. citizen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NLRB requires one "minority party member" to reach quorum. If the President is going to play this game, any and all Republicans appointed to the board should immediately resign and thereby deny the board a quorum to operate until the President submits nominations to the regular order.
Personally I think that companies or others subjected to any action authorized by these "members" should bring suit in court that the action is invalid because the board is not properly constituted. This also applies to any financial institution that the CFPB goes after under any action authorized by its "Director". At some point the courts cannot shirk the need to interpret the recess appointments clause as it is no longer simply a political question - these "appointments" bring with them real world consequences for citizens and businesses that cost real money and do real damage. If these appointments are not proper (and I don't believe they are), then the courts should refuse to go along with the actions these people claim to be authorizing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remember reading a few months ago, that the sole remaining Republican threatened to do just that, resign, if Obama appointed a bunch of ideolouges to the NLRB.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, it seems to me that the 'advise and consent' clause just got tossed out the window. If Republicans retake the senate but not the White House, expect President Obama to not care if the congress is in session or not.
Oh, wait, he already has!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust always appoint over the weekend when it's "not in session".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow despicable! It's pure evil! Making, shudder, recess appointments! What will he think of next?!? Using more than one pen to sign a bill?!? Issuing proclamations on Mother's Day?!? Why, I'll bet he even uses a teleprompter!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't you read? No FEWER than three! It's WAAAAARRRRRR.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecongress isnt in recess you idiot. go spew your lib lies elsewhere
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes anybody really honestly believe we live in a representative democracy any more? There is an Imperial presidency (Bush was one too). The president is an elected Emperor, he doesn't need the House, the Senate, or the Courts. What can stop him? Just another election...for now. But somebody, some president is going to claim that the election doesn't count because of some imagined emergency or crisis that demands his attention, and since the guts of the checks, balances, and oversight have been ripped out over the decades, nobody will question it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse150 years ago, stuff like this would have risen to impeachment - see Johnson, Andrew. Recognizing that it was very disputable that he should have been impeached - how can anyone say today's politics is more "gutter" than those of the past? The charges against him were political in nature, but the basis was that he went around the advise and consent nature of the Senate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseandrew johnson's impeachment is not a parallel. congress passed a law saying the president couldnt remove a cabinet member w/o their okay. this is just outright illegal and hopefully the GOP will respond properly and not in the usual milquetoast fashion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou expect the spineless mavens of the Senate to demonstrate some resolve? Hahahahhahahhahhahhahhahhahhahhah....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKind of my point - people want to make it sound like anything Republicans do or say in response to Obama's overreach is outlandish and unprecedented, but they ignore history, where much more legally questionable grounds were used to impeach a president. If what happened 150 years ago (ok almost 144) was for lesser grounds, how can they reasonably complain that saying something like this is unconstitutional and withholding funding for the agencies in question is somehow the most extreme thing ever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeren't Senate republicans refusing to even vote on NLRB appointees?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NLRB appointments weren't passed to the Senate until Dec. 15th. They Republicans never had a chance to not vote on them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd that makes unambiguously violating the Constitution okay because...?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe nominations didn't even come in until two weeks ago. There hasn't even been a debate on them yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseeverytime the NRLB rules against business Obama loses a ton of independent voters, even if the NRLB can't be stopped they will only get short term union victories ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse