Dems want Obama to use recess appointment for consumer bureau nominee

[jefferson_dem]

Dems want Obama to use recess appointment for consumer bureau nominee
By Alexander Bolton - 12/08/11 12:52 PM ET

Senate Democrats are urging President Obama to do everything in his power to appoint Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including a recess appointment.

Republicans blocked Cordray Thursday after Democrats fell seven votes short of ending a GOP filibuster, with 53 voting to advance the nomination and 47 voting no.

Democrats said the agency tasked with overseeing banks and other financial institutions would be crippled without its head and urged Obama to step in to address the situation.

“I hope the president will use whatever tools are legally at his disposal to get Cordray on board,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking leader of the Senate Democratic leadership

<SNIP>

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/198167-dems-want-obama-to-use-recess-appointment-for-consumer-bureau-nominee-

Thursday, December 8, 2011
Recess Review

Barack Obama, in his press briefing after the Senate defeated by filibuster the Richard Cordray nomination today, threatened a recess appointment. My work on this is apparently not done, because Dave Weigel -- who is an excellent reporter -- then tweeted: "What recess does Obama think Congress is going to have, exactly? House ain't gonna play along."

So, time for a quick review of the basics (detailed info here). The problem is that the House is refusing to go into extended recess, using pro forma sessions to prevent a recess longer than three days -- and by the Constitution, the Senate cannot recess for more than three days if the House is in session. However, there are at least three options that the president could use if he wants to move ahead anyway, all of which appear to be legal and Constitutional, although no doubt he'd provoke a controversy if he used any of them. Of course, as I'm going to say over at Greg's place later, the real controversy is the current GOP use of the filibuster...at any rate, here are his options:

1. Make a recess appointment during a short recess. The three-day minimum for a recess to "count" for purposes of recess appointments is based on an old Justice Department legal opinion; it's not clear whether that opinion would hold for House-enforced non-recess recesses, and at any rate it is not binding. Presidents shouldn't ignore Justice Department legal opinions without good reason, but in my view there is ample reason to do so here.

2. Invoke the Article II power of the president to resolve differences between the House and Senate over recesses in the Senate's favor. This appears to be an untested and unused presidential power, but the plain meaning of the text seem to support a potential presidential role, either for intrasession recesses or, as would be the case now, for end of session adjournment.

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/recess-review.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. K & R

:kick:

[madmax]

2. Yes! K&R

[great white snark]

3. Do it.

:kick:

[toddwv]

4. He should recess appoint everybody on his list that is being held or blocked.

[TheWraith]

8. The catch is, to do that the Senate actually has to go into recess.

The Republicans have been holding "pro forma" sessions even when they're out of Washington specifically to prevent recess appointments.

[toddwv]

11. IMO that is an egregious action on the part of Congres..

Obama needs to start playing hardball. Here's one I'd love to see him toss. Imagine how many heads would explode:

Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Adjourn and appoint and see if they pull that shit again.

[TheWraith]

12. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple.

For one thing, the power of the President to adjourn Congress has never been used. I mean ever, in the history of the US, not once. For that reason, it's not exactly fleshed out what the rules are--for instance, does the use of the phrase "extraordinary Occasions" refer only to convening them, or also to adjournment? If it does apply, what does "extraordinary Occasions" really mean? In the event of a war, or is it pretty much whatever the President thinks merits it?

So in other words, even if he tried it, chances are all it would result in is a fistfight with the Republicans over the Constitution, and not an actual adjournment of Congress.

[Lord Magus]

13. When it comes to calling special sessions, "extraordinary Occasions" means...

...whenever the president damn well pleases. Even if "extraordinary Occasions" also applies to the president adjourning Congress (which isn't a particularly logical reading of the text), it still wouldn't constitute an actual limitation on the use of the power.

[toddwv]

14. I know it's not simple.

But what they have been doing is ridiculous.

There are limitations to it. Reading it over again, it looks like it may be possible for the President to adjourn Congress when the houses disagree about adjournment. So if he can get Reid to work with him, then the Senate just takes the opposite of what the House does and the President can adjourn.

Extraordinary occasions isn't a big problem. This seems to imply that it should be something that doesn't happen often. I would think that once per term would be extraordinary to fit the bill.

I know he won't do it, I would just love to watch the "party of the Constitution" spin their heads off trying to explain why a Constitutionally enumerated presidential power is unconstitutional.

[AtomicKitten]

5. If there is any way the GOP can stay in session to prevent it, they will.

I hope the president's list of recess appointments is obnoxiously long. He's been deprived of too many nominees and judges being confirmed.

[Swede]

6. From May 2011 - Senate GOP blocks recess appointments

The Senate will be in “pro forma session” because Republicans are threatening to block adjournment, Senate leadership aides said. A senator who lives in nearby Virginia or Maryland will be asked to briefly open and close the session on those days, during which time no business will be conducted.

The Senate is tasked with confirming top executive branch officials nominated by the president. But Article II of the Constitution allows the president to temporarily appoint officials during a Senate recess.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0511/Obama_cant_make_recess_appointments_next_week.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Senate Republicans clearly aren't doing their jobs

At what point is enough enough? :shrug: It sickens me that they not only have had a choke hold over every manner of Senate business since Ted Kennedy passed away and Scott Brown took his place but they also apparently have a good shot at winning back formal control of the Senate next year. :puke:

[Inuca]

9. The way things are going with the payroll tax issue

there may not be much of a recess to start with...

[secondwind]

10. Aren't the Baggers occupying the House chamber 24/7??? that has been their M.O.

.... Obama has not been able to make ANY recess appointments, as long as there are folks in the Chamber.

[Tx4obama]

15. The GOP has been blocking 'adjournment' for most of 2011

the Senate has been forced into 'pro-forma sessions' during breaks BECAUSE the GOP doesn't want Obama to be able to make recess appointments.

If there is 'no recess' then recess appointments can not be made.