A new precendent? Recess appointments

erps · #1 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

Will this become accepted practice? I can picture future administrations justifying their actions with the "but Obama did it" defense.

What is a recess? Constitution doesn't specify - CBS News)

PBzeer · #2 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

All you need to know is ... it was a recess when Bush was President, but it's not when Obama is President. The "gimmick", as Obama calls it, was the brainchild of Harry Reid during the last part of the second Bush term.

kd3pc · #3 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

for this president, what does the constitution have to do with anything....??

chrisncate · #4 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

Funny how no cons howled when Sam Fox was recess appointed by GW.... (don't remember him? He donated 50k (50k) to the swift boat smear merchants in exchange for an ambassadorship position). Just one of hundreds of examples btw.

I'm kind of surprised no cons really understand why and who brought us to this "pro forma" non governance trickery and gimmicks we enjoy today.

The cons do not (as they have already stated) oppose Richard Cordray as the nominee based on his merits, they oppose the agency itself and are using tricks like this to try to subvert the American people out of an agency that was designed to aid in protecting people from capitalist predators (who can blame them? Anything that tries to look out for the public interest is natural kryptonite to the lizards in red and their corporate masters.

Want to blame someone for our lawless, broken government? Blame yourself for voting R since 1980.

jrd22 · #5 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

Chris- must be nice to be able to blame EVERYONE that isn't on your side for EVERYTHING that is wrong. Certainly no Democrats have ever engaged in any trickery or gimmicks and god forbid that they had anything to do with where we are as a nation today.
Back on subject, certainly Obama is on shaky ground with his interpretation of "recess", but he'll probably get away with it unfortunately. More the kind of move a dictator makes than the President of a democratic republic. I can only hope that it's challenged at the highest levels.

chrisncate · #6 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrd22

Chris- must be nice to be able to blame EVERYONE that isn't on your side for EVERYTHING that is wrong. Certainly no Democrats have ever engaged in any trickery or gimmicks and god forbid that they had anything to do with where we are as a nation today.
Back on subject, certainly Obama is on shaky ground with his interpretation of "recess", but he'll probably get away with it unfortunately. More the kind of move a dictator makes than the President of a democratic republic. I can only hope that it's challenged at the highest levels.

Lol, "my side"...

You know, you're right in a way though. These forum debates obviously have "sides", and I do self identify here as being very against the right wing establishment (the power structure and accepted neocon ideology, not so much individuals like yourself who actually live outside the beltway and prolly have an ounce of sincerity in their belief system still intact, although god knows how after GW... but I digress). This, however, should not then automatically identify me by default as an Obama supporter, I am not.

Honestly, I even agree that Obama shouldn't have gone that route. My problem comes from folks on the right who have zero room to be talking crap about this appointment (or just about any other constitution shredding action by a president) after eight years of turning a blind eye to the Bush administration.

PBzeer · #7 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

Err chris? They are called recess appointments because they occur while the Senate is in recess. The Senate was not in recess when these appointments were made.

Obama could have made the appointments one day sooner, and the Senate would have been in recess. He chose not to, so that he could add an extra year to their terms.

It's not that he made recess appointments, it's that he made them illegally. He's made other, legal, recess appointments, but you won't find anything that I'm aware of on here about them.

chrisncate · #8 (**permalink**) 01-08-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Err chris? They are called recess appointments because they occur while the Senate is in recess. The Senate was not in recess when these appointments were made.

Seems to me you are supporting the "rules" only when it's convenient for you to do so (Geneva conventions ring a bell? We followed the Geneva conventions over the last decade? Retroactive immunity? Outing an active intel asset for political reasons? The list is almost endless. Get real Beezer - you (the right) sees an opening here, and as usual you pounce regardless of the hypocrisy. All that is left to do now is fire up the right wing impeachment machine). Sickening.

Did you know that 74% of Americans from all political leanings are in favor of the Consumer Protection Bureau according to a well published poll? Are you even aware at what that agency is tasked with doing?

Did you know Republicans only hold one half of one house (I know it seems like they are always in power, but trust me - I'm right on this one), and that the people voted for Obama for exactly this kind of change, even if it's too little too late?

Imo it is too little too late for the O to redeem himself in my eyes, but nevertheless - when a nation votes a man as president, and the opposing party decides that the will of the people will be filibustered perpetually, you ought to be speaking out against that, not looking for technicalities to tear down our president (again).

The right has no room to talk about rule of law yet, in light of the last decade.

PBzeer · #9 (**permalink**) 01-09-2012

Well, if it's okay to you for WHOEVER is President to make what ever appointments they want, without the Constitutional provision of "advise and consent" by the Senate, then there's nothing wrong with these "recess appointments" that occurred without the Senate in recess.

Quote:

Imo it is too little too late for the O to redeem himself in my eyes, but nevertheless - when a nation votes a man as president, and the opposing party decides that the will of the people will be filibustered perpetually, you ought to be speaking out against that, not looking for technicalities to tear down our president (again).

Hogswallop

erps · #10 (**permalink**) 01-09-2012

Quote:

Seems to me you are supporting the "rules" only when it's convenient for you to do so

Seems to me you're making an awfully big assumption there. Harry Reid and company successfully stopped the previous president from making recess appointments by not going into recess. It was a gimmick, but it was a line that not even the previous president would cross. This president did. So what I'm wondering, will this become the new normal? What do you think? And please spare me telling me what I think.