These came as a real shock even to the labor-watching community. What makes them so unusual, above and beyond the Cordray appointment, is that the president only submitted the names to the Senate on December 15. As far as I am aware — and I could be wrong — the names were never put to a cloture vote of any sort. If that is the case, then the president has bull-rushed the Senate. He has no excuse that the Senate is filibustering these nominations. The Senate is entitled to take its time in considering such appointments.
Regardless of the validity or not of deeming a three-day break a “recess” — which ignores Congress’s prerogative to manage its own affairs, and raises the specter of the president someday making an appointment during a bathroom break — this is on its face an extraordinary abuse of process.
Regulating no longer requires the consent of the governed. The Dems are going to spend the next 11 months slamming their policies into place using any and all means available.
Legitimacy has never been much of a concern to the average Progressive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNext 11 months? They've been doing it for the past 36. These latest usurpations are mere escalations of the unlawful tactics Obama has employed continuously since he took office - using reconciliation to pass health care, legislating through regulations and executive orders, taking a dive on DOMA, launching a war in Libya without Congressional authorization, etc.
Our opposition does not think the law applies to them. As they have shown time and time again, they will simply ignore those laws they do not like or which otherwise act to constrain their power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would add to your list the GM bailout. For the first time in the country's history, the government under color of law, stripped equity from secured creditors (bond holders) and gave it to unsecured creditors (the UAW) - creditors that also happen to be advocates, contributors and organizers for the DNC. He then, at the expense of American taxpayers and their grandchildren, forgave all that debt of the new company - again, benefiting his campaign allies.
It gets almost no ink in conservative circles, but of all the things Obama has done, I think that thing was the the worst.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd when is the GOP going to decide to fight back? And in an effective way? Complaining on TV (or on the pages of NRO) that this is an unprecedented power grab doesn't amount to much at all. That, and $4, will get me a latte at Starbucks.
Like Iran doing what it does, Obama is doing what he is because he knows NO ONE on the other side has the guts to step up and stop him. (and I'm analogizing, not equating the substance).
Will the GOP stand together and withhold funding for both of these agencies and refuse to pass any legislation that doesn't contain a ban? Or do anything that makes the Democrats pay a price?
Or will they talk a bit and then back down? As they've done so many times before?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what is to be done? Court challenges?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy captcha is "that's enough." How appropriate. We've had presidents disdainful of our founding document to which they all pledged to uphold and protect before. But this fellow takes the 7-layer cake. With today's technology, any recess appointment other than a military one in the time of war violates the spirit of the Constitution. This is clear defiance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe good news is, and there is some, is that we will not once have to endure in the lame-stream-media the phrase "constitutional crisis." A Democrat did this, so God has spoken, and that's that. The better news? Everyone on the right is going to redouble their efforts at civility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEnough with Republican obstructionism. I, and most of the country, will applaud Obama for getting things done by circumventing the "do nothing" 9% approval, Congress.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile were at it, why don't we just disband the House and the Senate since they are just getting in the way of what Lord Obama wants to get done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWonder if you said the same thing when Bush made use of all those signing statements ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you really that insincere or that dumb to equate signing statements, which are opinions of the law, with actual actions that are illegal? Everyone else did it is a poor excuse even when it is true, but liberals make it a farce when they take unrelated and incomparable actions and equate them to say, "see what we are doing is not as bad as you think it is."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhich ones ? specifically ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBush NEVER pulled this type of Hugo Chavez BS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice attempt at changing the subject.
Not really, it was actually pretty pathetic.
I should add that Obama has been doing signing statements as well. Why are things only bad when Republicans do them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you and the majority of the country do in fact applaud the circumventing of congress and so encourage such behavior I fear the Republic is already lost and it is lost at the feet of the Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd when it is *your* obstructionism, or your wife's, or your friend's-or anybody else's that waylays the President from getting that which he desires, will you still applaud if he decides that your rights due to you by virtue of the system were of no more of significance than that "do nothing" 9% Congress which you despise so much? Will you still applaud if someone else, building upon the precedent today made here, one day renders your objections moot by simply ignoring whatever foundation they rested upon for surety? Will you? I know right now you will say yes or somehow try to redefine the issue, for your faction is engaged in battle and it must be "my faction, may it aways be right, but my faction, right or wrong".
But when it happens--and it will, sir, it will, for it is the nature of these things to grow if not checked-I think you might regret such a choice. But as you will.
As to the gist of your post, I don't think as much of America is as enamored of the Little Prince as you are, so we shall see if they applaud as well. My personal feeling is that if more felt favorable to unions, they would be members of them, so I am not as sanguine about the round of applause as you are. But we shall see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd the trains will be running on time, too, I bet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is clearly a cynical attempt to get the GOP to put itself into a position where it can be demagogued as a friend of the rich and enemy of labor. This is why I do not support and never will support any who call themselves by the name "Democrat", even as I am not a professed Republican. These actions are right out of a Latin American banana republic.
The action must be fought,of course, or else all will go to pot and we will have rule by brazenness rather than rule by law. The appropriate action would be to defund the appropriate offices, and perhaps the entire agencies involved. Since Axelrod has surely already taken this into account, and is hoping for it, the appropriate counter strategy is to defund the President's salary and travel budget until at such time as the appointments are rescinded and withdrawn, with the individuals in question never to be submitted for any federal office ever again. This is a serious Constitutional transgression and nothing but an eventual road to Imperial Rome lies along this path unless the challenge is immediately met, and in such a way as to make it hurt, with no recompense for the President and no honorable way out.
The Senate flat out has the right to deny the the President appointees of his choosing if it so chooses (and has not recessed)--it is part of the checks and balances, a way to make sure one man does not get into power and then, from an unassailable position, do as he pleases. Since one cannot govern alone, it is a way to insure demogogues do no get to run riot.
I actually do no know if there are any decent, politically aware Democrats out there--I assume there are, but I don't know for sure. Assuming there are, I would say this---a Rubicon of a sort just got crossed. What do they intend to do about it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a lot of vehemence in this comment. I don't happen to think it's warranted.
Can you please show us what part of the Constitution has been transgressed? There is actual and longstanding uncertainty about what constitutes a Senate recess. The three day "rule" was made up by the DOJ nearly 2 decades ago. There's nothing Constitutional about it, there is no court ruling to follow. There is no Rubicon. We're no closer to having an emperor today than we were last year.
The GOP has it within its power to stop recess appointments and other government by loophole. If they would stop endlessly delaying and filibustering every Obama nominee and instead let the Senate provide advice and consent, then we wouldn't be in this situation. If Cordray and Becker had been given an up-or-down vote, they would both have won. That they never got that vote says all you need to know about who should be the focus of your outrage.
The minute Obama recess appoints a nominee who the Senate has rejected through an up-or-down vote, I'll be right there with you yelling about executive overreach. But that won't happen, and you know it: the Senate GOP will guarantee the vote never occurs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not a president. This is a dictator.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse