• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

"by advise & consent of the Senate", doesn't mean you can refuse every single nominee because you don't like the new agency.

they are abusing their power, and Obama played a better hand.

I does mean that they can refuse to consent for any reason they feel like.

I don't know why they even bother asking questions, because if "intent" becomes part of the law, then its your word against mine. What's the difference between the record of objecting being "Richard Cordrey is an asshole" and "Richard Cordrey abuses any power given him" and "Richard Cordrey is a good bowler, therefore he can't run this bureau"?

There is no difference, an objection is an objection. And if you and 40 of your other friends can come up with one, then there is no consent.
 
Last edited:
I does mean that they can refuse to consent for any reason they feel like....

disagreeing with the agency itself, is an inappropriate reason to refuse to consent to any possible nominee.

they are abusing their power.
 
disagreeing with the agency itself, is an inappropriate reason to refuse to consent to any possible nominee.

they are abusing their power.

Does it make it better if their objection is that "<insert current nominee> is not worthy of the unchecked power of the CFPB"?

Now they're objecting the nominee, which makes it ok?

Again, your opinion of the process is that the intent of the objection matters. I disagree.
 

if you are going to filibuster a nominee, you should then allow the POTUS to make a recess appointment when Congress is on vacation.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks




Ladies and gentleman, I present to you the truth of the matter. But again, you don't have to take my word for it nor that of the above posters. Just read the book, "The Big Con," by Jonathan Chait or "White Protestant Nation," by Allan J. Lichtman to learn how the Republican party now has K Street lobbyist on lock and how lobbying has corrupted DC politics! But to the point of the appointment over the apparent objection of the Senate, they don't have to like the Bureau itself. Remember: Congress doesn't consist of Republicans alone. Moreover, Congress passed Dodd-Frank; doesn't matter if one side of the political divide disagrees with some or all of the provisions of the legislation that is now law. Congress has an obligation to fill all vacancies under the law they themselves agreed to. It does not matter if the vote went the way of the majority party (Democrats in this case). The bill passed and it is not law.

Clearly, there is a conserted effort by the GOP not to fill the CFPB position and their reasons are obvious: Wealth and Power.

By allowing the CFPB Commission vacancy to be filled, the GOP reliquishes control over the Bureau as it is a 1-man show and there is no board that Congress appoints. The GOP sees this as akin to all other Administrative positions where there is only a Secretary and no board responsible to Congress by appointment or otherwise. There's also the issue of this Bureau singularly declaring certain practises by the free market system as being unfair to consumers be it in banking, housing, auto sells, telecommunications or any other industry that sells a product or service where the markets can take advantage of consumers. Republicans want no part of that because it kills their lobbyist interest.
 
Last edited:


Only in your partisan mind. Bolton did fine...
 
which law?


Oh, I am truly sorry...Silly me thinking that the Constitution of the United States was the law of the land.


the proper way to fix an agency that you feel is poorly constructed, is to pass a new law fixing it.


Absolutely, however there are serious problems with this agency that Obama and his gang constructed. The very idea that he can create an agency that is neither funded, nor accountable to congress, or the people should make every American who loves this country shudder with the possibilities of what can happen.

filibustering EVERY nominee to head the agency, is an abuse of the filibuster & Senate approval process.


Not saying it's right, it sure was good enough for the demo's to use, now all of the sudden, when used against them it is not fair....Surely you see the blatant hypocrisy there?

j-mac
 

Of course...they took it to a new level. Let me see here.....

Dems held up Bush judicial appointments by refusing to pass through committee judges that had the votes to pass confirmation because they didnt agree with them

Repubs wont pass (like they have the votes to stop it anyway) an appointee to a not yet existent department...not that one was ever nominated mind you. Might be different if the department was already created and the position was of vital importance and there has been someone already nominated for some time and they refused to hold hearings for confirmation. But to blame the other side for stonewalling a confirmation when no one was ever nominated?

Looks like the same thing to me...a pissing contest. Two little kids holding their breath on the playground trying to get their own way. Obama is the sneaky little one who, while all attention is on the two kids holding their breath, does something wrong hoping not to get caught because of the distraction.

The "He did it first" excuse is lame at best. Its nothing more than an excuse to do as you please.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks


From the book, "The Big Con," by Jonathan Chait, pages 72-73:


*Quote source: Washington Post article, "Still Longrolling for Pork," by Robert Novak, June 19, 2006 (article no longer available for free at WashingtonPost.com)

Blocking the appointment of a CFPB Commissioner feds into this anti-K Street battle between the White House and Republicans who would prefer things remain unchecked where consumer protection is concerned.
 
Yes, and rightly so, that downright Marxist was rejected even by demo's....


j-mac

could you please share with us what she has done that causes you to insist she is a marxist
 
Yes, and rightly so, that downright Marxist was rejected even by demo's....


j-mac

Not judging whether she was right or wrong for the position. Just correcting a falsehood or misunderstanding; there was at least one person nominated by the President for the vacant CFPB position.
 
could you please share with us what she has done that causes you to insist she is a marxist


Let's let her dig her own hole...


Limbaugh correctly analyzes it here:


Not to mention that Warren has said before that 401K holders are "suckers" and in the formation of the CFPB would do what she could to incorporate these private plans into the overall SS administration because we certainly couldn't be smart enough to make the right decisions with our own money.


j-mac
 
Abso-freakin'-lutely.!!!!!!


I give you Senator Hatch:

Time For Accountability At The CFPB

j-mac

Good post. And nice summary by Hatch on the issues/concerns surrounding the new bureau.

One can agree or disagree with the specific items Hatch lists in the article. But the point is that there were some genuine elements of disagreement between the two parties regarding the structure of this new agency. The courts will determine if Obama's political maneuver was legal, but in the mean time the efforts by the Left to portray this as some altruistic action by Obama to "protect the American people" is very misguided.

May turn out to be a clever political powerplay by Obama. But the reality is that it was nothing more or less than a "clever powerplay by Obama"
 
the proper way to fix an agency that you feel is poorly constructed, is to pass a new law fixing it.

filibustering EVERY nominee to head the agency, is an abuse of the filibuster & Senate approval process.

Not sure how would work. Reid controls the Senate and he wasn't going to allow any such legislation to move forward. And Obama sure as hell wasn't going to sign anything that undermined his own expansion of power.


(Help me out here....??)
 
Not sure how would work. Reid controls the Senate and he wasn't going to allow any such legislation to move forward. And Obama sure as hell wasn't going to sign anything that undermined his own expansion of power.....

so, following the rules of the Senate & the Democratic process set up by our Founding Fathers, the GOP doesn't have enough votes to kill or drastically ammend this new agency?

tough luck. that doesn't justify abusing the Filibuster rule or having 5-minute Senatorial sessions to make believe the Senate isn't on vacation, in order to prevent any Recess Appointments.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how would work. Reid controls the Senate and he wasn't going to allow any such legislation to move forward. And Obama sure as hell wasn't going to sign anything that undermined his own expansion of power.


(Help me out here....??)

Well that's the breaks, right? I mean, you can't ALWAYS get your way RIGHT NOW. That's why we have elections every two years. For now, the voters have spoken and Republicans don't have enough seats to get it done. That doesn't give them the right to stamp their feet and twist the advice and consent process to a purpose for which it was never intended.

Lost in all this is the fact that a huge majoirty of Americans support the Consumer Protection agency, including 68% of Republicans (AARP polling data)! Republicans in Congress aren't just trying to snub Obama -- they are going against the clear majority of Americans and their own constituents.
 
Last edited:

When did Bush unilaterally declare the senate was out of session? If you can't find an example than all of your posts are gibberish.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

This statement is the ultimate irony. Let me tell you why:

1) The father of Neoconservatism was Irving Kristol, who WAS a REAL card carrying member of the Communist Party when he attended college in New York.

Is there relevance?

Again, relevance?

3) President Bush had a LOT of Neoconservatives in his administration.

Again, relevance?

 
When did Bush unilaterally declare the senate was out of session? If you can't find an example than all of your posts are gibberish.

When did Democrats filibuster a nominee because they opposed the AGENCY that the person was nominated for? If you can't find an example that your post is gibberish.
 
From my point of view, Obama is working with an obstructionist Republican, legislative branch. Here is consumer protection legislation that Big Money has bought and paid for legislators to oppose and Obama slides it by the bought and paid for votes. A humiliating defeat and maybe they'll have to give the vote money, er, I mean campaign funds back to the fictitious entities(corporations-corporate personhood). Now I'm a Green, not a Dem, and it is obvious that the 1% is against this law, not the people. Repubs want this agency to be like the NRC, DOD, DOE, etc. and that translates to cheerleaders for the industries involved and not regulators. For this moment in time, we have a regulator.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…