Andy – I agree that this is a grotesquely hypocritical and shabby move by Obama and the Democrats. I’m not altogether convinced it’s unconstitutional (there’s some interesting discussion over at the Volokh Conspiracy on the issue).
I also wonder if Congress will do anything about it. But I also wonder whether Obama did it this way precisely so he could spark a bigger fight. As I understand it, he could have followed a more accommodating precedent by doing an interim appointment between the 2011 and 2012 sessions. He opted instead to do it this way, inviting more outrage. It may be that he considers the politics of the fight more important than winning it (as Dan notes below, Cordray may have no power until he’s confirmed by the senate anyway). I’m all for Congress pushing back against encroachments by the imperial presidency. But we should at least keep in mind Obama is entirely in campaign mode these days and his maneuvers and provocations have more to do with getting reelected than anything else. That doesn’t mean Republicans shouldn’t spring his traps when necessary, but they should go in understanding that they are, in fact, traps.
Jonah is bang on correct here. It's an easy answer. They're going to do *nothing*.
Because if either the Senate Republicans threaten filibuster, or the House leadership bottles up spending, Obama will hammer them from now til they give in as the do-nothing Congress, fully aided and abetted by the MSM. (payroll tax? Bueller? Bueller?)
Which brings up a much more important point. Irritation at the lack of consistency or rationality from Democrats, as they currently stand, is like getting mad at a rattlesnake for biting. In both cases, it's their nature - and as Democrats represent a bankrupt (literally) but numerically significant world view, we just need to accept that, and have the argument.
However, this is *not* the case with the passive acceptance by the Republican and pundit elite of the MSM in their role. The MSM makes claims to moral legitimacy based on counterfactual standards of fairness and objectivity. They are not due the forebearance extended to Dems as (semi) honest brokers .
The rational response is to this situation is a series of targeted efforts to disrupt mainstream media's effectiveness. Use the power of government to hamstring their operations. Threaten them privately with difficulties renewing broadcast licenses, investigations into corrupt newsgathering practices. Degrade copyright protections and DCMA penalities, from the current mess of money grubbing industry dictates, to something less draconian, more in line with what the Founders intended.
In short, hit them in their wallets, til real objectivity becomes a business imperative. Apart from that, conservatism is relegated to a delay tactic - a less effective one each year, as the larger society buys into the consistent message of Uncle Sam as mommy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know, the amendments to the Constitution did not begin with the Second Amendment, for some reason my Spidey-sense tells me that what you are proposing has First Amendment issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would say the Constitution doesn't begin with the 1st Amendment either ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe said the ammendments begin, not the Constitution begins.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't there some adage about starting a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel? Picking a fight with the MSM would be as big a PR disaster as a government shutdown. What we need is Reaganesque communicators who can explain the issues to the average voter, over the head of the MSM if necessary. I don't see a lot of them within Republican ranks, but that's more within our control than what Obama and the MSM do.
Gersen,
The fact that the adage refers to ink and barrels is a leading indicator of stale thinking. I'm not talking about a Spiro Agnew type declaration of war on the media. I'm suggesting that transnational media conglomerates respond to pressure on their revenue streams, particularly if its done quietly.
Or, we can do it your way, and wait on a charismatic leader to rescue us, while your 'average voter' continues to marinate in the consistent message pushed by the educational / media / government complex.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe should just shut down Washington DC and let all decisions be made by the editorial board of the NYT instead?
One thing that bugs me about most Republicans is that this attitude that since we never win, it's no use fighting. Go ahead and surrender before the battle is even joined.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that this is all about a strategy to spur a "showdown". It's like mud-wrestling with this guy and we should not stoop to play. What we should be staying is this: this contempt for the constitutional order is exactly why he needs to be replaced, and we will be concentrating all our energy on his defeat. Only once he is removed, and the proper balance between executive and legislative branches is re-established, will the constitutional order be restored. Since he is willing to ignore the Constitution, we'll not waste time thinking that he'll abide by any courts, either. Thus, we will not let this staged effort stampede us into wasting our time and energy taking him to court. We call on the American People to remove him though the power of the ballot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Only once he is removed, and the proper balance between executive and legislative branches is re-established, will the constitutional order be restored."
But it won't be. This has been the Republican leadership's stock excuse for doing absolutely nothing every time they've been given the opportunity. The President acts. They do nothing. Something bad happens. And then, magically, it's supposed to make the GOP more attractive to voters.
President Obama will undoubtedly make other unilateral appointments in exactly this same way, and these appointments don't necessarily expire with the end of his term.
The damage done by these appointments is far reaching and real. There's no clean slate for the economy just because it's 2012, and the same Republican congressmen who bravely walk away from every issue of consequence are not going to suddenly become die-hard firebrand reformers ready to make hard decisions that they have to defend on the nightly news. They don't have the stomach or the principles for it, and there will always be a reason why now's not quite the right time.
The sad truth is that politicians will seldom relinquish power or repudiate precedent once it's on their side. I don't want President Romney to be able to declare the Senate is in recess, or delegate powers he doesn't have to unelected czars, or to enact sweeping legislation disguised as executive orders, It's still bad for the nation and corrosive to the structure of our government even if my guy is the one charge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Andy – I agree that this is a grotesquely hypocritical and shabby move by Obama and the Democrats. I’m not altogether convinced it’s unconstitutional"
So, even though it might be perfectly legal you find it "grotesquely hypocritical and shabby"? Do you really? Or are you just playing today's Corner game of feigned outrage?
Btw: "President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions." See http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BP\W%3B%20P%20%20%0A
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So, even though it might be perfectly legal you find it "grotesquely hypocritical and shabby"?"
How is this a contradiction? Hoo-boy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Obama cannot complain that he has had a particularly difficult time getting appointments as compared to his predecessors. Your statistics undermine his rationale for not submitting the names to the Senate first. He's had little difficulty, despite his minions' whining about "unprecedented" opposition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Obama cannot complain that he has had a particularly difficult time getting appointments as compared to his predecessors. Your statistics undermine his rationale for not submitting the names to the Senate first. He's had little difficulty, despite his minions' whining about "unprecedented" opposition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously. "Grotesquely hypocritical and shabby" is hilarious - the kind of thing you normally reserve for teen-angst vampire thrillers, really, but 'reserve' isn't something that Conservative pundits seem to find valuable.
And don't even get me started on the feigned outrage thing - I know Democrats do it too, but you can practically see the veins popping around these parts. One wonders if they lie in bed at night fuming at the 'shabbiness' or if they just turn it off. I'm not even sure which would be worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBuckeye - Who's to say that electing a Republican will restore the proper balance between the Executive and Legislative branches? Bush committed the U.S. to the Iraq war without Congressional consent. This is all politics. Let's not kid ourselves that Republicans respect the Constitution anymore than Democrats. They both tend to read between the lines, or just make stuff up, when it suits their goals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis old lie again. Bush went to congress for permission to fight the war in Iraq, and it was granted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, you may be right but can we really sit by and do nothing?? The Dems would be up in arms if the GOP pulled a similar stunt. I hate all this wonkish talk about how illegal it is or isn't, it amounts to a bunch of legal scholars doing the equivalent of discussing how many angels fit on a pinhead. He certainly violated every norm we have and I'm sure the Senate Republicans thought that by meeting they were blocking him from recess appointments the same way Reid did to Bush, can we really just let things like this go unchecked? I mean, I know that's not what you're saying but this whole thing is just so ridiculous, disgusting, and upsetting, it's insane to think that there is nothing that can be done about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseobama when he was sworn in took an oath to uphold the constitution. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution and therefore is grounds for impeachment. Who cares what obama wants or what his strategy is. It is more disheartening to allow the double standard or le obama do whatever he wants too no matter how hypocrytical he is acting. The GOP should scream to the rafters on this and begin impeachment proceedings on this, on Fast and Furious, on bribing dem senatorial candidates to withdraw from races, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this quote is accurate, its a big freudian slip:
Obama:
"I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them"
Hah, there you have it. He wants to hurt our economy... in his own words. :)
Read more: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, Mr. Goldberg,
Using your high standards, isn't it "grotesquely hypocritical and shabby" that the Senate republicans have attempted to undo Dodd Frank, duly enacted legislation, by filibustering a nominee because they don't want a single "czar" in charge of a bureau they don't like?
I'll spell it out for you: the senate republicans were abusing the advice and consent role to single-handedly and effectively repeal legislation not to their political liking.
Oh, but since they're on the side of truth, justice and the American way that makes it ok.
I wish you'd respond to this point personally, but I doubt you have the courage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am proud of President Obama.
He is no longer allowing Republican politicians to abuse their power. Trying to overturn legislation by refusing to consent to ANY nominee, regardless of qualification, is clearly an abuse of the Advise and Consent power. This is especially true when it is done by a MINORITY of the Senate rather than a majority.
President Obama has rightly determined that there is no negotiating with Republican politicians, whose only goal is to destroy his Presidency because they hope he fails and think the most important thing is to make sure he is a one-term President. When you are dealing with people who think it is okay to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States to score some political points and avoid the necessity of compromise, it is necessary to be decisive rather than weak.
Finally, the so-called pro forma sessions in which there is no prospect of any business being accomplished are a joke and do not change the fact that the Senate is actually in recess rather than doing the business of the American people.
Bad faith in negotiations has consequences. Imagine how much different things might be if Republican politicians had decided to recognize the limits of their own power and sought compromise rather than total domination. It is Republican politicians who have decided to undertake an unprecedented abuse of the filibuster (which is unconstitutional) and other privileges granted to the minority in the Senate.
Only after Republicans politicians are defeated for embracing the vice of extremism will they recognize the error of their ways and realize that governing under divided government is the art of compromise. President Obama reached out to Republican politicians and tried to compromise, only to be burned over and over again.
Enough is enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse