White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer put out his rationale for the recess appointment of Richard Cordray, including some of the legal reasoning.
Here are the facts: The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.
Like Kevin Drum, I think the public should see the Administration’s reasoning on this. There’s plenty of reason to believe that the whole pro forma session strategy is a sham, I’d just like to say how they come to that reasoning.
However, we may not see that, because for all the posturing and posing on the right, I’m not seeing any legitimate threats of court action over this. One problem with suing the White House over recess appointments would be standing. It’s unclear whether the courts would want to get involved in this at any level. And that may be why you just hear people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner yelling about this being “unprecedented” without saying that the lawyers have been called or anything like that. McConnell would only determine the move on “uncertain legal territory.”
That’s not all. According to Greg Sargent, you can expect more recess appointments for the National Labor Relations Board. Greg explains why this is so crucial; the board would cease to function without appointments.
Obama is set to appoint Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the board — something unions have made a big priority for them in the new year. Senate Republicans have opposed the recess appointments to the NLRB on constitutional grounds, but unions charge that Republicans are only interested in rendering the agency inoperative.
Obama’s move, which will help energize unions in advance of the 2012 election, is yet another sign that he is determined to circumvent GOP opposition and make government functional again by any means necessary. It’s another sign that the White House and Dems have abanoned the illusion that anything can be done to secure bipartisan compromise with Republicans on the major items on Obama’s agenda.
As for why the Administration went this route rather than using the inter-session gap to recess appoint Cordray and others, Brian Beutler explains that waiting until the second session of the 112th Congress has begun could pave the way for Cordray to remain in place until the end of 2013, rather than the end of 2012.
Treasury wanted to see some other key financial positions filled along with the Cordray appointment, such as open positions at FDIC and OCC. But by recess-appointing NLRB members to make that agency functional, and by rendering the pro forma gambit moot, Obama reserves the right to make those relatively uncontroversial appointments by recess action later if need be. This is definitely an escalation against Congressional obstruction. And it’s about time.
UPDATE: Via email, here’s AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka’s statement:
We commend the President for exercising his constitutional authority to ensure that crucially important agencies protecting workers and consumers are not shut down by Republican obstructionism. Working families and consumers should not pay the price for political ploys that have repeatedly undercut the enforcement of rules against Wall Street abuses and the rights of working people.





65 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
this is excellent.. things are going to get really interesting very soon.. :)
While I don’t think it’s proper for the Senate to hold up nominations of clearly qualified people, it bothers me that President Obama is taking this route as opposed to the one used by Roosevelt. While the constitution may give the President the right to fill vacant posts, the Senate is still in session and, to me, this seems like another power grab by the executive.
But if it is an attempt to consolidate or reclaim a Presidential power, then why hasn’t he use this power before? Apart from being up for re-elect, is there something special about this year that makes it different from the previous three?
So, after nearly 4 years they finally figured this out?
This shows that when he wants to have something happen, it does. Which means that the reason things did not happen before is because he did not want them to happen. It shows it is not the Republicans who should be blamed for stalemate in D.C. but Barry. He has the tools to break the stalemate and is just unwilling to use them.
Tools of 1%ers, aka Ds?
On edit: Just saw Tumpka’s statement. So yeah, if he’s for it, the appointees are surely 1%er tools.
Okay so Obama makes a few recess appointments, the appointments only last one year. The Obama-bots start cheering for Obama being a real progressive. After he’s re-elected, he goes back to being a Republican.
Candidate Obama will be visible until Election Day. Then it’s President Obama (or ex-president Obama). What a load of bullshit. And the people jumping up and down screaming PLEASE TRICK ME AGAIN!! will deserve what they get should they get what they want.
BTW: I have noticed a great deal of “coordination” recently among the various “Liberal blog” Opinion Leaders: Greg Sargent, DDay, the DKos front-pagers, Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum. And now we have Big Labor slobbering over Obama just in time for the race. I’m not impressed.
But, but, Lilly Ledbetter.
Bingo!
The election is the ONLY reason these appointments have happened.
This of course completely false unless the Obama administration wants to seriously claim that no business was conducted when the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits were extended – which was done in a pro forma session.
They got the memo. And actually opened their emails. I trash mine before reading them.
Prep for the BIGGEST ‘we suck less’ campaign of all times.
Be afraid, be very afraid, of what the bad guys on the other team will do if they win.
We should keep count of how many crumbs the self-styled progressives will be happy with.
Doormats, every single one.
“And it’s about time.” Only for cool-aid drinkers. For the rest of us, it’s an obvious political move designed solely to give him a much needed campaign argument. TAfter three years, can anyone name a program he’s pushed that shows him deserving of Democratic voters trust?
Must be a pretty steep “learning curve” for this administration.
Finally, President Obama appears to be realizing that one cannot extend the hand of comity and bi-partisan cooperation to someone (the Republicans) wearing a mask and flailing around with a chain-saw.
I was heartened in hearing about the recess appointment of Cordray, and equally heartened about NLRB recess appointments coming shortly, but with all the backlog of his appointments due to obstructionist, mask-wearing, chain-saw-wielding Republicans, why President Obama doesn’t recess appoint ALL of his nominees that are being blocked is anyone’s guess. Just get it over with President Obama, and let the Republicans wail and gnash their pointy fangs all they want. As Barney Frank said the other night, while Democrats are far from being perfect, they are at least not nuts like the Republicans all appear to be.
Yeah: I noticed that, too. Kind of repeating a lot of the crap pumped out by the NYT, as well.
Unimpressed; lazy “journalism.” Not thrilled with Veal Pen pom-poms.
Hey come on, be fair. I got a note just the other day from Bernie Sanders reminding me how hard he’s fighting FOR US, for our future, for our kids.
Guess that Kool Aid tastes really good – eh?
Boo hoo obstructionist “Republicans” are only & solely to blame. And Mr. Potus Eleventy Diminsional Chess can FOOL some us again & again.
No thanks… pass the Kool Aid along to someone else.
Best laugh I’ve had all day.
Bernie Sanders, invented by PTB to make us think there is one member of congress who actually cares.
Today’s Kabuki Show is entitled:
Wherein Barack Obama pretends to play eleventy-dimensional chess and pretends to pull a fast one on those meanie-bully Weepubwicans who spoil everyone’s fun. Oh, if only those nasty-wasty Weepubwicans weren’t ever so mean and obstructionist, why, Barry Zero would’ve *surely* have gotten everything that the 99% voted him to do. Just ask your pal, Richard Trumka! w00t!
“Oracle” or “Apologist”? Two years with the House AND the Senate. Did he do ANYTHING you’re proud of? Three years, has he fought for one Democratic ideal? And all you can add is, be afraid?
Nothing special,just about time!
DDay?
You’ve got to be kidding?
This is a new way of running the gov. Both parties are gonna use it for everything.
I like DDay but don’t always agree with his posts. I’m sure DDay has broad enough shoulders to accept some constructive criticism. You may disagree with me; that’s fine.
Best invention since sliced bread.
Saying DDay is a Veal Penner is constructive criticism?
That doesn’t tell me anything. I don’t have a problem with Osterity making appointments in this way. If DDay wants to do a little mind reading I’m okay with that too. That said, I may have some objections to the people he appointed to the NLRB once I check them out but that’s a separate issue.
Some folks miss that DDay writes the News Desk beat. His job is to report, not to opine. Same with Jon Walker’s work. He writes the Elections beat, his job is to report on Elections. Folks got really irritated with all the Iowa stuff over the last few days. But it’s the only Elections news going, so Jon covers it.
I have one rule in cases like this…if it pisses off Pumpkinhead Boehner and that despicable bastard McConnell, it’s fine by me.
The Great Orange Boner and Mitch the Turtle! They won’t be here all week! Be sure to tip your waitress. And try the veal!
I’m as disgusted with Osterity as the next guy but it looks to me as if some aren’t happy unless everything they read doesn’t contain some form of Obama bashing. Fukishima reactor explodes – Obama’s a neoliberal. Shit like that.
These recess appointments are in no way a move by President Obama toward the 99%. Rather, they are the minimum he can do to keep the Veal Penners satisfied in their enclosures. Without recess appointments to the NLRB, Trumka and other labor leaders would have been infuriated and likely cancelled any meaningful support for the reelection effort. Likewise, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was such a high profile appointment that the president absolutely had to move lest he incur the wrath of the MSNBC anchors and other high profile media persons. Notice that the recess appointments were limited to these positions. In particular, the president has not made appointments to vacant judicial positions where he also could have exercised his recess authority.
I always do and I did. It was FAN-tastic.
OT, I’m so glad Perry decided to stay in. I’ve got a whole shitload of jokes I ain’t used yet.
Don’t confuse “Democratic Voters” and “Progressive Voters”. While Progressives almost always vote D, a large portion of the population that usually votes D are voting that way because of a couple of core issues. An example would be the “pro choice” people that really don’t give a damn about the NDAA or SOPA or the wars. If an R candidate was reasonably pro-choice (unlikely, at least for now) they could easily be swayed to the Republican candidates because of other issues (the economy, for example). Progressives do not own the D party because, by themselves, Progressives can elect no one at the national level, and even have a difficult time at the state level. The D party has always been a party of compromises, and the R has tended to adhere to a much stricter vision of what its candidates will be. Because of this, there is more vote shifting to the R from those that categorize themselves as D than vice-versa. Before Reagan there was a lot of middle of the road R’s, but that was between the early 50′s and the 90′s. Libertarians are in the same boat as the Progressives, and the percentages of the populace is about the same. Unfortunately, Libertarians and Progressives actually have little in common, so both are effectively powerless on a national level because they cannot vote for the same candidates. If one or the other group makes the decision to stay home on election day, then the candidate that is farthest from their beliefs will most likely be the one elected.
Many here trash Obama day after day for not standing up to the GOP. Specifically, many here have been pouinding him for not making recess appointments. Then, he does, and you trash him for that.
So it goes.
I doubt many jurists would accept a recess appointment. The re-appointment process could really disrupt their careers.
Since I’m the one who first mentioned it, I feel obliged to say something here. I think DDay walks a fine line with the other “liberal” bloggers at DKos, PL, TPM etc, and also, on occasion and in the opposite direction, with many of the regular FDL commenters. I think it comes with the turf. FDL is an outsider and in many respects a renegade, and that always makes things uncomfortable. I think we are witnessing the partisan coalescing of the “liberal thought-leaders” around Obama. I imagine this is not a mere coincidence with the Obama 2.0 rollout we’re also seeing. Since FDL — and DDay by extension — is the least partisan of the “liberal” blogs, some friction is inevitable.
Exactly so.
I think I agree with you.
I get the same kind of notes about once a week from Nancy Pelosi, of all people.
I’m not sure anyone is trashing him for making recess appointments, per se. It is the cynicism of doing it now that galls many folks, including me. And I am nonplussed at how readily many people are to blind themselves to the 3 abysmal years of Obama’s presidency when offered the smallest crumb. As for the merits, I believe that Obama’s NLRB appointments are “balanced” and, let’s be honest, these appointees don’t have much time before the next election to get much done. Obama could have done this — and a hundred other more important things — long ago but he chose not to. Now he is, it seems to me in order to get re-elected. IOW: it is the same damn thing we went through with him the first time: there is Candidate Obama and then there is President Obama, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Do I hope that there is any movement Left anywhere in the U.S. government? I sure do. But I have no intention of being placated by crumbs, nor do I intend to be deceived again, if I can prevent it.
Good point. The fact remains that Obama did very little to push these appointments forward in the first two years of his administration, when he could have had some success. Incidentally, Obama’s appointments, judicial and otherwise, may become much more conservative during a second term when he is not facing reelection considerations. Already, his second Supreme Court appointment, Elena Kagan, has a more conservative resume than his first, Sonia Sotomayor (who, like all the Clinton and Obama Supreme Court picks, is also not really a liberal).
Since I am the one who asked for clarification, I can readily “see’ where you are coming from.
That’s why I voiced my concern and hopefully why you chose to respond.
Thank you. I always value your contributions to the community.
I’m just glad he finally did this. And I’ll be glad if he does the NLRB appointments, too. He shoulda done this long ago. Nothing more hypocrtical than Boehner’s (or was it McConnell’s?) over-the-top whining about “disregarding the will of the people.” I started yelling at the car radio, then just turned the channel so I could calm down and pay attention to the road.
That doesn’t make me an Obamabot. And yeah, I hope the appointees are decent, but that’s the next step. This is at least calling the bluff of the obstructionists, for once.
Sorry newcarguy. My reply was meant for Wbgonne. No edit function here*g*.
I don’t think Article III judges CAN be appointed through recess. The appointment is constitutionally mandated for life. Yes, a federal judge can resign or be impeached but I suspect an interim bench appointment would be flatly unconstitutional.
You mean a whole “Santorum-load” of jokes?
No sweat. I think we might all feel discomfort as the election looms. We are in a world of shit and it is going to get messy as the pressure builds to fall in line behind Obama.
There are no liberals on the current Supreme Court. Ginsberg once was but she has faded under the relentless Rightward pressure from the rest of the Court. Sotomayor and Kagan are “Centrists,” a/k/a non-rabid Conservatives.
If the second SC appointment was more conservative than the first, the expectation is that should a third occur, it would be equivalent to one appointed by a Republican. If that’s the case, it does not matter which party wins the WH in 2012.
Not unrelated. Six are Roman Catholic. Three are Jewish.
Zero are non-believers.
I don’t think it does matter. Romney and Obama will be largely interchangeable. I don’t intend to waste one minute or one dollar supporting or opposing Obama or Romney. Unless I decide which nominee’s election will do more to foster the Leftist renaissance that is the country’s only hope. Will another Obama term finally drive partisan Democrats to abandon the party? I kind of doubt it based on the evidence to date. Will a GOP Romney Administration animate the Left where Obama’s second term might inhibit the Left? If I can figure that stuff out — which I doubt — I’ll know who to root for and against. If not, I don’t care who wins.
Ancient history. Are we gonna bitch about all the stuff he hasn’t done forever? The pattern has been there for all to see since before day 1. He’s a neoliberal and to expect him to do anything outside of that ideology is just fooling one’s self. My focus is trying to work around the damage he’s done and will continue to do. I don’t have time to rehash all his shit.
It’s just that when Obama finally deigns to fake an orgasm, he doesn’t do it in a convincing way.
Religion really doesn’t have to do with if someone is liberal or conservative. Ayn Rand was an atheist and I hardly think anyone would consider her a liberal.
It is the most Conservative Court in 80 years, maybe more. And getting more Conservative even now under a Democratic president. If Ginsberg leaves, it will be 9 Conservatives, ranging from moderate to intense. Expect no help from the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. None.
SD, I honestly think that it’s just that we are so far behind the eight ball with that Trojan horse that, compared to where he should have taken us, that no matter what he does with the rest of his time, we will still be so far behind the eight ball. At least, that’s how I feel about it. You can’t ass-rape me for three years, and then expect me to forgive you because you toss me a rose.
True dat.
“Looking forward and not backward.” I can NEVER forgive him for that, and neither should anyone else, IMO.
Nobody said not to remember. Unlike McSFB I’m not into refighting Viet Nam. Once was enough. Neither I nor anybody else can change Osterity’s actions. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. We should be able to fairly accurately predict what Osterity will do regarding particular issues. You have to remember, these people don’t give a rat’s ass whether you forgive them or not. We are nothing to them. As far as Osterity goes we’re stuck with not voting for him again. What else can you do? I’m not into using my time or energy to constantly say what an asshole he is. Once should be enough.
Understood. I would just add that, in addition to not voting for him again, I’d like to persuade others to not vote for him again. “g”
agreed.