Good. Finally.

Kazan: and Obama's balls grew 3 sizes that day.

"Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, Grow a vagina .. Those things can take a pounding." - Betty White.

Good.

And the biatchslapping of Congress continues. After At the same time as "recess-appointing" Cordray to head the CFPB yesterday, Obama did the same for the three NLRB members Republicans have been blocking since last year

Fixed.

Magorn: these ..mooks....basically try to make an end run around the law and shut down an agency they don't like by refusing to do thier sworn duty, and then THEY write a letter to Obama telling him that any attempt by him to fix their deliberate sabotage would "set a dangerous precedent"?!

The Congress has always had the power to effectively shut down agencies by screwing with their funding. It's not setting a precedent. But recess appointments are suddenly a new paradigm...? I don't get it. Is this just furthering the Usurper meme?

So, I assume that in a few years when a Republican president does the same thing we can anticipate the usual Switching of Quotes, as one side calls it an affront to the Constitution and the other side says it is the POTUS getting what needs to be done done against a do-nothing Senate.

I love those times.

brigid_fitch: MaxxLarge: For all of the Conservatives who are about to start biatching: This brings Obama to a grand total of 32 recess appointments. Bush made a total of 171.

So consider this a pre-emptive STFU.

I think the "outrage" from the GOP is that Congress wasn't strictly on recess when Obama did this. However, what they're ignoring is that Obama simply employed the Teddy Roosevelt maneuver (new window).

better

FTFA Republicans, who demanded structural changes to the agency before they would help confirm a permanent director, have charged the agency is a virtually unchecked government body that will hurt lending and put small banks out of business

When your entire industry is based on "if we don't fark over the public, we'll go out of business," clearly the problem is attempts to protect the public, not you.

EnviroDude: Constitution? WTF! You expect the annointed one to comply with something as mundane as the constitution?

/spits on it as he ponders what would have been if not for the failure of Fast and Furious


Maybe you should first read what the Constitution says on the matter?

Magorn: I find this part of the Washington Post article remarkable if only for the utter Chutzpah, the sheer unmitigated gall of the GOP senators:

Obama's action prevents the board from losing much of its power for the rest of the year. The NLRB is supposed to have five members, but it has operated for months with only three. This week, it is down to just two members, after Democrat Craig Becker completed his term. The agency is not allowed to conduct regular business with only two members.

Senate Republicans, hoping to effectively shut the agency down, had vowed to block any more appointees to prevent any further key decisions affecting labor relations. Last month, all 47 Senate Republicans sent Obama a letter warning that bypassing the Senate would set a dangerous precedent.

these ..mooks....basically try to make an end run around the law and shut down an agency they don't like by refusing to do thier sworn duty, and then THEY write a letter to Obama telling him that any attempt by him to fix their deliberate sabotage would "set a dangerous precedent"?!

Gotta love using procedural gimmicks to nullify the Constitution and the laws pass pursuant to it.

It sucks that our government has sunk to this level.

See, Republicans? This is what you get when you create a situation where there is nothing to be gained by engaging with you.

Also, suck it.

From what I've been hearing, the senate was technically in a "pro-forma" session, which means every three days they go in, turn on the lights, say the pledge, and then leave and that makes them enough "in session" that you can't do recess appointments. IRC, this started because of the BS Bush pulled with his insane number of recess appointments, and the Democrats needed some way of stopping him.

Now that the boot's on the other foot, the Republicans appear to be quite happy with the concept of a pro-forma session. And, lest you think I'm gonna go BSABVR, I think Obama is correct to tell them to go fark themselves and do a recess appointment anyway. Because the obstruction has just gone too far.

Spade: So, I assume that in a few years when a Republican president does the same thing we can anticipate the usual Switching of Quotes, as one side calls it an affront to the Constitution and the other side says it is the POTUS getting what needs to be done done against a do-nothing Senate.

I love those times.

Who cares if they switch sides depending on convenience. Does that somehow absolve you of the civic responsibility to decide whether Republicans' unprecedented refusal to recess Congress is constitutionally appropriate, or whether Obama's response is likewise appropriate?

To a responsible citizen claiming "independence" of party affiliation, the answer is "no."

Spade: So, I assume that in a few years when a Republican president does the same thing we can anticipate the usual Switching of Quotes, as one side calls it an affront to the Constitution and the other side says it is the POTUS getting what needs to be done done against a do-nothing Senate.

I love those times.

The fark do you mean in a few years? Obama's number of recess appointments is still a fraction of the ones Bush made.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: From what I've been hearing, the senate was technically in a "pro-forma" session, which means every three days they go in, turn on the lights, say the pledge, and then leave and that makes them enough "in session" that you can't do recess appointments. IRC, this started because of the BS Bush pulled with his insane number of recess appointments, and the Democrats needed some way of stopping him.

Now that the boot's on the other foot, the Republicans appear to be quite happy with the concept of a pro-forma session. And, lest you think I'm gonna go BSABVR, I think Obama is correct to tell them to go fark themselves and do a recess appointment anyway. Because the obstruction has just gone too far.

This is traditional for all of Congress.

Another good example is the filibuster. The filibuster is an affront to democracy and an evil bad procedural trick right up until you're in the minority party and then suddenly it is the last defense against the tyranny of the majority and a grand tradition of our form of government. Even the quotes for the media are usually pretty much the same, just with different names and party affiliation.

MaxxLarge: For all of the Conservatives who are about to start biatching: This brings Obama to a grand total of 32 recess appointments. Bush made a total of 171.

So consider this a pre-emptive STFU.

I guess this means the Senate was much more obstructive to Bush than it has been to Obama?

NRBQ?

Spade: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: From what I've been hearing, the senate was technically in a "pro-forma" session, which means every three days they go in, turn on the lights, say the pledge, and then leave and that makes them enough "in session" that you can't do recess appointments. IRC, this started because of the BS Bush pulled with his insane number of recess appointments, and the Democrats needed some way of stopping him.

Now that the boot's on the other foot, the Republicans appear to be quite happy with the concept of a pro-forma session. And, lest you think I'm gonna go BSABVR, I think Obama is correct to tell them to go fark themselves and do a recess appointment anyway. Because the obstruction has just gone too far.

This is traditional for all of Congress.

Another good example is the filibuster. The filibuster is an affront to democracy and an evil bad procedural trick right up until you're in the minority party and then suddenly it is the last defense against the tyranny of the majority and a grand tradition of our form of government. Even the quotes for the media are usually pretty much the same, just with different names and party affiliation.

Do you have a point? Either both sides are right, both sides are wrong, or one side is right and the other wrong. Decide which one it is, decide how important that is to you, and weigh it accordingly in your voting decision.

Shaggy_C: Magorn: these ..mooks....basically try to make an end run around the law and shut down an agency they don't like by refusing to do thier sworn duty, and then THEY write a letter to Obama telling him that any attempt by him to fix their deliberate sabotage would "set a dangerous precedent"?!

The Congress has always had the power to effectively shut down agencies by screwing with their funding. It's not setting a precedent. But recess appointments are suddenly a new paradigm...? I don't get it. Is this just furthering the Usurper meme?

Meh, was watching Fox News this morning (I know, I know, but its the only thing at work) The guy was admitting that yes recess appointments aren't new, but that he was particularly mad about this one because Obama did it so fast it never even had a chance to go up for a vote (while completely lying/ignoring the fact that the Rs blocked a vote last month). Also apparently this agency is going to be funded from Fed Reserve money so congress had no ability to pull its funding. MWHAHA

Spade: This is traditional for all of Congress.

Another good example is the filibuster. The filibuster is an affront to democracy and an evil bad procedural trick right up until you're in the minority party and then suddenly it is the last defense against the tyranny of the majority and a grand tradition of our form of government. Even the quotes for the media are usually pretty much the same, just with different names and party affiliation.

However, there are many lovely charts out there that show a dramatic increase in the use of the fillibuster over the past few years. There has been an unreasonable increase. And I really don't care who started it, I would very much like it to stop.

I swear to God I'll turn this car around and then NOBODY gets to go to Disney World, do you understand me? Stop hitting your sister.

Shaggy_C: The Congress has always had the power to effectively shut down agencies by screwing with their funding. It's not setting a precedent. But recess appointments are suddenly a new paradigm...? I don't get it. Is this just furthering the Usurper meme?

What is new is that this is a direct challenge to the Senate rules on what constitutes "recess" or not. The senate insists its not in recess because some guy walks in every three days to pound a gavel. So, according to them, the President can't do any recess appointments since its not in "recess".

/Obama challenging this nonsense is a good thing

captain_heroic44: Spade: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: From what I've been hearing, the senate was technically in a "pro-forma" session, which means every three days they go in, turn on the lights, say the pledge, and then leave and that makes them enough "in session" that you can't do recess appointments. IRC, this started because of the BS Bush pulled with his insane number of recess appointments, and the Democrats needed some way of stopping him.

Now that the boot's on the other foot, the Republicans appear to be quite happy with the concept of a pro-forma session. And, lest you think I'm gonna go BSABVR, I think Obama is correct to tell them to go fark themselves and do a recess appointment anyway. Because the obstruction has just gone too far.

This is traditional for all of Congress.

Another good example is the filibuster. The filibuster is an affront to democracy and an evil bad procedural trick right up until you're in the minority party and then suddenly it is the last defense against the tyranny of the majority and a grand tradition of our form of government. Even the quotes for the media are usually pretty much the same, just with different names and party affiliation.

Do you have a point? Either both sides are right, both sides are wrong, or one side is right and the other wrong. Decide which one it is, decide how important that is to you, and weigh it accordingly in your voting decision.

I think why each side does these things is more relevant than that they do them.

captain_heroic44: Spade: So, I assume that in a few years when a Republican president does the same thing we can anticipate the usual Switching of Quotes, as one side calls it an affront to the Constitution and the other side says it is the POTUS getting what needs to be done done against a do-nothing Senate.

I love those times.

Who cares if they switch sides depending on convenience. Does that somehow absolve you of the civic responsibility to decide whether Republicans' unprecedented refusal to recess Congress is constitutionally appropriate, or whether Obama's response is likewise appropriate?

To a responsible citizen claiming "independence" of party affiliation, the answer is "no."

Unprecedented?

Link

A nine-second session gaveled in and out by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., prevented Bush from appointing as an assistant attorney general a nominee roundly rejected by majority Democrats. Without the pro forma session, the Senate would be technically adjourned, allowing the president to install officials without Senate confirmation.

It's an evil unprecedented procedural trick that is an affront to democracy and the constitution right up until you're the party that needs it. Then we just switch the quotes around.

If "anytime the chamber is not in session" is a "recess", then a president can bypass the "advice and consent" requirement entirely by appointing everyone after-hours.

I don't like that precedent, especially given that "historical" uses for these parliamentary games are out the window and it's now "use whatever means are available - fark history". "My" side or "the other", I'd really prefer it if we followed the rules, even when it's inconvenient.

Bush already abused the hell out of recess appointments, and the Senate has abused the hell out of the filibuster (and anonymous holds). What's next?

MindStalker: Shaggy_C: Magorn: these ..mooks....basically try to make an end run around the law and shut down an agency they don't like by refusing to do thier sworn duty, and then THEY write a letter to Obama telling him that any attempt by him to fix their deliberate sabotage would "set a dangerous precedent"?!

The Congress has always had the power to effectively shut down agencies by screwing with their funding. It's not setting a precedent. But recess appointments are suddenly a new paradigm...? I don't get it. Is this just furthering the Usurper meme?

Meh, was watching Fox News this morning (I know, I know, but its the only thing at work) The guy was admitting that yes recess appointments aren't new, but that he was particularly mad about this one because Obama did it so fast it never even had a chance to go up for a vote (while completely lying/ignoring the fact that the Rs blocked a vote last month). Also apparently this agency is going to be funded from Fed Reserve money so congress had no ability to pull its funding. MWHAHA

I thought the issue was that the Boehner has refused to officially adjourn the House, and that Obama has made recess appointments anyway. Have I misunderstood? Are Republicans really b*tching just because Obama is making recess appointments while Congress is recessed?

MindStalker: Shaggy_C: Magorn: these ..mooks....basically try to make an end run around the law and shut down an agency they don't like by refusing to do thier sworn duty, and then THEY write a letter to Obama telling him that any attempt by him to fix their deliberate sabotage would "set a dangerous precedent"?!

The Congress has always had the power to effectively shut down agencies by screwing with their funding. It's not setting a precedent. But recess appointments are suddenly a new paradigm...? I don't get it. Is this just furthering the Usurper meme?

Meh, was watching Fox News this morning (I know, I know, but its the only thing at work) The guy was admitting that yes recess appointments aren't new, but that he was particularly mad about this one because Obama did it so fast it never even had a chance to go up for a vote (while completely lying/ignoring the fact that the Rs blocked a vote last month). Also apparently this agency is going to be funded from Fed Reserve money so congress had no ability to pull its funding. MWHAHA

That's the exact issue for them.

In the status quo, those agencies that do their job well and inconvenience the moneyed Powers That Be, such as the EPA, find their funding often challenged and budget cut by Congress in retaliation.

The CFPB won't have to worry about such thing since they get paid from the Federal Reserve directly and Congress won't have a Damocles sword to hang over their heads.

bravian: Shaggy_C: The Congress has always had the power to effectively shut down agencies by screwing with their funding. It's not setting a precedent. But recess appointments are suddenly a new paradigm...? I don't get it. Is this just furthering the Usurper meme?

What is new is that this is a direct challenge to the Senate rules on what constitutes "recess" or not. The senate insists its not in recess because some guy walks in every three days to pound a gavel. So, according to them, the President can't do any recess appointments since its not in "recess".

/Obama challenging this nonsense is a good thing

On the same note what constituents a session? I am seriously asking. If a session is whatever the senate say it is then isn't the recess appointment over if the senate opens a session and closes it after a couple minute.

off to the googles

Cataholic: MaxxLarge: For all of the Conservatives who are about to start biatching: This brings Obama to a grand total of 32 recess appointments. Bush made a total of 171.

So consider this a pre-emptive STFU.

I guess this means the Senate was much more obstructive to Bush than it has been to Obama?

Given that the Senate was under Republican control until 2007 I'd like to know when most Bush's recess appointments took place, but I think many blocks by Dems were due to the nominee's bad/extreme qualifications and not just for pure partisan obstructionism like the republicans now.