FARK.com: (6859362) Despite the best efforts of the GOP to block him, Obama recess appoints the first ever head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Despite the best efforts of the GOP to block him, Obama recess appoints the first ever head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)		516
		More: Hero, President Obama, GOP, protection agency, chiefs, Republican, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Ohio Attorney General, Richard Cordray

• • •

2744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jan 2012 at 1:45 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6859362

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

516 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

what_now		2012-01-04 01:05:35 PM

Too late for you buddy.

Dusk-You-n-Me		2012-01-04 01:20:57 PM

Boehner:

This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department. The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution.

This is mostly cant. 1) It's not "entirely unprecedented," because the administration (as ThinkProgress blogger Ian Millhiser has argued for weeks) was xeroxing a ploy by Teddy Roosevelt. 2) Same with "centuries." 3) How does anyone in Congress type the phrase "checks and balances" without collapsing in a giggle-heap? Republicans were effectively nullifying the leadership of an agency created by a previous Congress because, dagnabbit, they wished it hadn't been created.

Link (new window)

Suck it, obstructionists.

DarnoKonrad		2012-01-04 01:27:48 PM

+1 for the Constitution.

Dusk-You-n-Me		2012-01-04 01:34:18 PM

Barney Frank compares GOP complaints about Obama recess appointment to arsonists who yell at people escaping burning buildings
- Ari Berman (@AriBerman) January 4, 2012

Marcus Aurelius		2012-01-04 01:36:11 PM

Why does the GOP hate America?

MaudlinMutantMollusk		2012-01-04 01:37:38 PM

A Republican president would never do such a thing

/wait, what?

Edsel		2012-01-04 01:38:42 PM

what_now: [onpoint.wbur.org image 500x342]

Too late for you buddy.

I'm wondering if Obama specifically didn't give Warren a recess appointment because the party thought she'd be the best candidate for winning the MA Senate seat back...

markie_farkie		2012-01-04 01:43:21 PM

There are plans....within plans...

Grand_Moff_Joseph		2012-01-04 01:44:48 PM

Once again, reality has a liberal bias.

what_now		2012-01-04 01:45:37 PM

Edsel: I'm wondering if Obama specifically didn't give Warren a recess appointment because the party thought she'd be the best candidate for winning the MA Senate seat back...

The Senate refused to retire to block her from being appointed.

At the time, Scotty2Hotty was looking like an absolute lock. He had money, recognition, and hadn't actually *done* anything to criticize, he just looked pretty and kept his mouth shut.

She started an "exploratory committee" and raised a lot of money in a week.

Captain Steroid		2012-01-04 01:46:52 PM

GOP can suck it.

CravenMorehead		2012-01-04 01:47:00 PM

Why he doesn't fill every open spot while they are in recess is a mystery. But this is something I suppose.

Quasar		2012-01-04 01:47:03 PM

Sweet. The head of a mostly toothless agency will really turn things around for America.

Lost Thought 00		2012-01-04 01:50:18 PM

No one forced them to go on recess. If you want to blame anyone, blame Boehner for not being able to keep a holiday quarum together.

Weaver95		2012-01-04 01:51:02 PM

I'm at the point where pissed off republicans are just pro forma. Yeah, yeah, register your complaint at the desk and STFU.

RexTalionis		2012-01-04 01:51:26 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: A Republican president would never do such a thing

/wait, what?

In fact, the legal justification of this recess appointment essentially flows from the case of Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir., 2004), which was an 11th circuit case which upheld President Bush's intrasession recess appointment of a federal judge.

Notable excerpt (i.e. big wall o'text here, sorry):

"Focusing first on the language of the Constitution, and then on the nation's history and on the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause, we also conclude that President Bush appointed Judge Pryor during a legitimate Senate recess, that is, during a "Recess" within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause. In this case, the Senate's break fits the definition of "recess" in use when the Constitution was ratified: the dictionary definitions that have been called to our attention (or that we have found) did not, for example, speak of a minimum time. See, e.g., A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) (reprinted 1967) (defining "recess" as "retirement; retreat; withdrawing; secession" or "remission and suspension of any procedure"). And the text of the Constitution does not differentiate expressly between inter- and intrasession recesses for the Recess Appointments Clause. The challengers have used both history and textual analysis to support their contentions that the ten- or eleven-day break in the Senate's Session that underlies Judge Pryor's appointment was not a "Recess" within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause. We have considered all of the arguments. But the arguments are not so strong as to persuade us that the President's interpretation is incorrect. For example, we reject the argument that the plain meaning of the phrase, "the Recess of the Senate," limits the opportunity to make recess appointments to one particular recess: the recess at the end of a Session. We do not agree that the Framers' use of the term "the" unambiguously points to the single recess that comes at the end of a Session. Instead, we accept that "the Recess," originally and through today, could just as properly refer generically to any one-intrasession or intersession -of the Senate's acts of recessing, that is, taking a break. See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1965 (2d ed.1987) (1966) (defining "the" as "used to mark a noun as being used generically: the dog is a quadruped"); 17 The Oxford English Dictionary, 879 (2d ed.1989) (1928) (defining "the" as "referring to a term used generically or universally" and providing examples of such usage from the 18th Century).7 ... The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President's appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today. Although a President has not before appointed a judge to an Article III court during an intrasession recess as short as the one in this case, appointments to other offices-offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation-have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter.8 Furthermore, several times in the past, fairly short intrasession recesses have given rise to presidential appointments of judges to Article III courts.9 Twelve Presidents have made more than 285 intrasession recess appointments of persons to offices that ordinarily require consent of the Senate. So, given the words of the Constitution and the history, we are unpersuaded by the argument that the recess appointment power may only be used in an intersession recess, but not an intrasession recess. Furthermore, what we understand to be the main purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause-to enable the President to fill vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government -supports reading both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of the Clause. That an intersession recess might be shorter than an intrasession recess is entirely possible.10 The purpose of the Clause is no less satisfied during an intrasession recess than during a recess of potentially even shorter duration that comes as an intersession break."

Wayne 985		2012-01-04 01:54:09 PM

Good.

HotWingConspiracy		2012-01-04 01:54:56 PM

Garet Garrett		2012-01-04 01:55:08 PM

DarnoKonrad: +1 for the Constitution.

You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

Alphax		2012-01-04 01:55:18 PM

Good news indeed.

Weaver95		2012-01-04 01:56:00 PM

Seriously tho. The GOP is in permanent outrage mode. It's impossible to tell what's a legit complaint anymore.

A Fark Handle		2012-01-04 01:56:01 PM

i wish it was warren...

Garet Garrett		2012-01-04 01:56:03 PM

Lost Thought 00: No one forced them to go on recess. If you want to blame anyone, blame Boehner for not being able to keep a holiday quarum together.

They're not on recess. Technically, there was a lapse of a few seconds between Congresses, but that's not when Obama acted.

CPennypacker		2012-01-04 01:56:10 PM

I smell repiblican outrage!

Jackson Herring		2012-01-04 01:56:11 PM

what_now: Scotty2Hotty

Let's not lose sight of the things that really matter in life. No matter what happens in 2012, he still has a sweet pickup truck

Soup4Bonnie		2012-01-04 01:56:33 PM

Boehner and McConnell are howling so you know they didn't see this coming. Good on you, Mr. President.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier		2012-01-04 01:57:14 PM

Lost Thought 00: No one forced them to go on recess. If you want to blame anyone, blame Boehner for not being able to keep a holiday quarum together.

It's funny as all hell. I've never seen open rebellion in the House before. I am waiting for one Senator to break ranks and tell the Republicans to piss off. I think that if one does it, about 20 more will do so as well. Ideally, it'd be one that was recently elected and has enough clout in state to handle the pressure (or will be retiring soon and doesn't give a damn anymore). Lugar, you can grow a pair and earn my vote. HINT MOTHERFARKING HINT!

Reverend J		2012-01-04 01:57:25 PM

Quasar: Sweet. The head of a mostly toothless agency will really turn things around for America.

Description of teh CFBU

/Google is your friend

keylock71		2012-01-04 01:58:39 PM

"Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people," he said in a statement.

Right... Because the American people just love getting raped by Corporations and Banks.

Stamp your feet and hold your breath, GOP... You can't look more like petulant children than you already do, I suppose.

It's about time, Obama...

chiefsfaninkc		2012-01-04 01:59:07 PM

Worst use of the Hero Tag this week.

Weaver95		2012-01-04 01:59:12 PM

Garet Garrett: DarnoKonrad: +1 for the Constitution.

You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

Except that the GOP hasn't exactly been playing fair either, have they? I'm sure the next guy in power will abuse the rules. But with both parties dead set on winning at any cost, that was gonna happen no matter what. My advise? If its gonna happen anyway you might as well lay back and enjoy it.

Reverend J		2012-01-04 01:59:51 PM

Quasar: Sweet. The head of a mostly toothless agency will really turn things around for America.

Description of teh CFBU

/Google is your friend

Now with html link goodness (new window)

/code fail

Mighty Taternuts		2012-01-04 02:00:13 PM

Garet Garrett: I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

lol wut.

King Something		2012-01-04 02:00:16 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: How does anyone in Congress type the phrase "checks and balances" without collapsing in a giggle-heap?

Either because they think it means that the phrase "checks and balances" refers to the two parties instead of the three branches, or because they want their constituents to think so. Possibly both.

Marcus Aurelius: Why does the GOP hate America?

Because a black Democrat is President, that's why.

Seriously, it's why they almost caused the US to default on its debts, why they defunded President Obama's teleprompter and why they chose to prevent recess appointments for as long as possible in order to prevent him from having recess appointments for as long as possible.

And because someone's eventually gonna cry that my argument is invalid because I used the "race card," consider the GOP's current shenanigans compared to their actions while Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Truman or FDR were in office - and then think for three fifths of a moment how Obama is different from those 5 guys.

Sergeant Grumbles		2012-01-04 02:00:49 PM

Garet Garrett: You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

thinkprogress.org

Old enough to know better		2012-01-04 02:01:27 PM

Good. Its about time Obama found his balls.

Serious Black		2012-01-04 02:01:44 PM

Garet Garrett: Lost Thought 00: No one forced them to go on recess. If you want to blame anyone, blame Boehner for not being able to keep a holiday quarum together.

They're not on recess. Technically, there was a lapse of a few seconds between Congresses, but that's not when Obama acted.

So in your opinion, it's okay for the legislative branch of government to nullify a Constitutional power of the executive branch of the government?

Garet Garrett		2012-01-04 02:01:56 PM

Weaver95: Except that the GOP hasn't exactly been playing fair either, have they?

What's that mean? Republicans didn't vote the way Obama did so you're going to give Obama a pass on upending the recess appointment power? Do you even bother to think? Or do you just kiss presidential ass?

HotWingConspiracy		2012-01-04 02:01:56 PM

Garet Garrett: DarnoKonrad: +1 for the Constitution.

You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

LOL

Preventing a democratic government from functioning properly is good for democracy, eh teabagger?

Republicans don't want to work, so Obama will. Americans like people that get the job done.

Anavrinman		2012-01-04 02:02:42 PM

Ok, so one step forward for every 10 steps back...

vartian		2012-01-04 02:03:16 PM

Garet Garrett: This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

This has nothing to do with the people and everything to do with a biatchy Republican congress that wants its way and is willing to do whatever it can to obtain it. And they got outsmarted. You can pretend this nullifies congress, pretend it is anti-American, pretend it sets a precident, but all you have to really do is look at the facts:

thinkprogress.org

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

ifury.net

Your concern is noted.

Soup4Bonnie		2012-01-04 02:03:49 PM

Garet Garrett: I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

Or worse, a president could appoint an angry moustache as ambassador to the U.N.

nevirus		2012-01-04 02:04:43 PM

Garet Garrett: This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy.

"Democracy" in this case is "shameless obstruction."

Why can't the Republicans negotiate in good faith? Why must they obstruct everything and anything that Obama wants?

heavymetal		2012-01-04 02:04:49 PM

Good move Mr. President. You played their game long enough and it got you nowhere, time to take off the kid's gloves.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, objected strenuously, saying Mr. Obama was overstepping the bounds of his executive power and leaving the agency open to legal challenges.

"Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people," he said in a statement.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, called the recess appointment a "no-brainer," and said that Mr. Obama would not be waiting around for Congress to act this year.

"He nominated Richard Cordray six months ago," Mr. Carney said. "He won a majority of support in the Senate, yet Republicans refused to allow an up-or-down vote. This is a shame."

McConnell is just butthurt because he got out "politicted" when his obstructionist practices got circumvented.

tlchwi02		2012-01-04 02:04:59 PM

keylock71: Right... Because the American people just love getting raped by Corporations and Banks.

and the american people elected the congress and president that passed this legislation with the creation of this agency being something that was promised. They did not elect the new congress with the explicit promise of it being destroyed.

So refusing to allow the appointment until the agency was essentially recreated by a minority of the new congress who were mad about its original passing but couldn't muster the votes then or now to repeal it is not against the will of the people, but appointing someone to do something the people support is.

got it

Churchy LaFemme		2012-01-04 02:05:34 PM

Weaver95: Seriously tho. The GOP is in permanent outrage mode. It's impossible to tell what's a legit complaint anymore.

Who knows??

On the one hand, the Republicans piss and cry like a bunch of little girls at anything Obama does. On the other hand, Obama does seem to play just as fast-and-loose with the Constitution as the last guy did.

Mighty Taternuts		2012-01-04 02:05:57 PM

Garet Garrett: Weaver95: Except that the GOP hasn't exactly been playing fair either, have they?

What's that mean? Republicans didn't vote the way Obama did so you're going to give Obama a pass on upending the recess appointment power? Do you even bother to think? Or do you just kiss presidential ass?

I still get a smile when people accuse Weaver95 of being a Democrat.

Garet Garrett		2012-01-04 02:06:49 PM

Serious Black: Garet Garrett: Lost Thought 00: No one forced them to go on recess. If you want to blame anyone, blame Boehner for not being able to keep a holiday quarum together.

They're not on recess. Technically, there was a lapse of a few seconds between Congresses, but that's not when Obama acted.

So in your opinion, it's okay for the legislative branch of government to nullify a Constitutional power of the executive branch of the government?

Are you saying that refusing to consent to appointments made by the President is unconstitutional? That's a remarkable position, to say the least. In defense of your unprecedented suggestion, I guess it would make life a lot simpler. We could just do away with the whole advise and consent thing once and for all. Hell, let's just do away with Congress. And maybe take a break from the whole "election" thing altogether, since that has the potential to derail our progressive mission. Damn, maybe the Chinese have it right!

Ninepoundhammer		2012-01-04 02:07:24 PM

Garet Garrett: DarnoKonrad: +1 for the Constitution.

You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

Kind of getting a little hyperbolic there. And your failure to address republican obstructionism and it's role in his decision to go this route makes it difficult to take you seriously.

RedPhoenix122		2012-01-04 02:07:24 PM

Churchy LaFemme: On the one hand, the Republicans piss and cry like a bunch of little girls at anything Obama does. On the other hand, Obama does seem to play just as fast-and-loose with the Constitution as the last guy did.

True. I have no problem with the issue at hand, however, because lets face it, Congress is not in session. If I go to my job, clock in, and leave, my boss doesn't say I'm there.

Displayed 50 of 516 comments