PDA

View Full Version : Recess Appointments



ccmanuals
01-04-2012, 04:28 PM
You are probably going to see alot of posturing and rhetoric coming from the GOP in Congress over recent recess appointments. It actually ought to be quite entertaining.


President Obama is planning to announce today that, in addition to his recess appointment of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he will also use his recess appointment powers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/breaking-obama-also-set-to-make-recess-appointments-to-the-nlrb/2012/01/04/gIQABCkvaP_blog.html) to place Department of Labor Attorney Sharon Block, labor lawyer Richard Griffin, and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board. Like the CFPB, Republicans have spent the past year blocking nominations to the NLRB in an effort to keep the agency from functioning. Those efforts would have paid off soon, since after Craig Becker’s term on the board expired this week, the NLRB would have been reduced to two members, which is the number it had for more than two years (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/03/24/173195/roberts-nlrb/) from 2008 to 2010. This effectively shuts down the board, since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that two members does not constitute a legal quorum, and thus, a two-member board can’t make binding rulings.
All 47 Senate Republicans have warned Obama of a “constitutional conflict (http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=dc410277-22ae-4afb-9ef2-e269d19425a8)” should he choose to use his recess appointment powers — authority he is well within his right to use, as ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser noted yesterday — but it was Chief Justice John Roberts, a noted conservative, who suggested the president should make recess appointments (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/03/24/173195/roberts-nlrb/) to keep the NLRB functioning, as ThinkProgress reported in 2010.
Obama’s appointment of Block, Flynn, and Griffin is important, too, because it boosts the board’s membership to five, protecting its quorum even if member Brian Hayes follows through on his threats to quit (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/business/brian-e-hayes-threatens-to-quit-labor-board.html?pagewanted=all). Preserving its right to quorum ensures that its rulings will not be thrown out on legal challenges, as more than 600 cases (http://www.cq.com/document/display.do?docid=3620943&sourcetype=6) were by the Roberts Court in 2010.

Tobago
01-04-2012, 04:31 PM
I'm surprised, too. After all, it is after 4:30 and there is no bloviation in the air.

ccmanuals
01-04-2012, 04:50 PM
WASHINGTON – In a letter sent today, all 47 Senate Republicans called on President Obama to not recess appointment Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Last week, it was announced that President Obama withdrew the nomination of NLRB Member Craig Becker, who was recess appointed after he failed to be confirmed by the Senate, after a controversial tenure on the Board. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spearheaded the letter.





In the letter, the Senators write that “Appointments to the NLRB have traditionally been made through prior agreement of both parties to ensure that any group of nominees placed on the board represents an appropriate political and philosophical balance.” The Senators noted that the “controversial recess appointment of NLRB Member Craig Becker is an example of an NLRB nominee having been appointed over the objection of the Senate and the result of that decision has been unending controversy throughout Member Becker’s entire term on the Board and, which has undermined the credibility of the entire NLRB.”
The Senators particularly urged the President not to attempt to appoint Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin during the brief mandatory adjournment of the Senate in between sessions of Congress as some of the President’s allies have publicly suggested he do with other nominations. According to the Senators, doing so would “set a dangerous precedent that would most certainly be exploited in future cases to further marginalize the Senate’s role in confirming nominees” and that such a maneuver “could needlessly provoke a constitutional conflict between the Senate and the White House.”
The full text of the letter is below:


December 19, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC

RE: NLRB Nominations


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to urge you not to undermine the Senate’s advice and consent role by attempting to place your recently announced nominees to National Labor Relations Board, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, in those positions through recess appointments. Moreover, we urge to instead allow for a full and thorough review of their qualifications through regular order in the Senate.

Appointments to the NLRB have traditionally been made through prior agreement of both parties to ensure that any group of nominees placed on the board represents an appropriate political and philosophical balance. Indeed, the very statutory design of the Board is meant to ensure a basic level of bipartisanship in the appointment of Members. As you are undoubtedly aware, appointments to Board that depart from this tradition have resulted in some of the most contentious, divisive struggles we face in the Senate. Your controversial recess appointment of NLRB Member Craig Becker is an example of an NLRB nominee having been appointed over the objection of the Senate and the result of that decision has been unending controversy throughout Member Becker’s entire term on the Board, which has undermined the credibility of the entire NLRB.

We urge you to avoid attempting to give your latest NLRB nominees - Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin - recess appointments at any point, especially during the mandatory adjournment between sessions of the 112th Congress, which will undoubtedly be very brief. While some have publicly suggested doing so would be an appropriate course of action with regard to other nominations, it would, at the very least, set a dangerous
precedent that would most certainly be exploited in future cases to further marginalize the Senate’s role in confirming nominees and could needlessly provoke a constitutional conflict between the Senate and the White House.
We are certain that we all want to avoid any further conflict over additional recess appointments to the NLRB. It would be especially unfortunate if the Senate was never given an opportunity to fully explore their qualifications and suitability to be Members of the NLRB through a careful and deliberative hearings and confirmation process.
Thank you for your attention regarding this important matter.

Sincerely,
# # #

John of Phoenix
01-04-2012, 05:14 PM
They bitch and say, "He doesn't show any leadership" then bitch when he hammers them with it.

RichKrough
01-04-2012, 05:15 PM
If I was president and wanted to poke the GOP in the eye with a stick, I'd appoint Ralph Nader just to watch their heads explode.

adampet
01-04-2012, 06:17 PM
I didn't want to put it out on the Bilge, but Richard Griffin is my BIL. I figured I'd hear about it from the right about what a pro-union lawyer he is and they'd be right. He knows his labor law.

Besides if the Republicans are going to block EVERY appointment that the President has made, he's fully within his powers to make recess appointments.

Oh and Dick rowed Crew for Northeastern, his daughter rowed for Pembroke College.

Adam

Nicholas Carey
01-04-2012, 06:25 PM
It would seem that the Senate -- or at least its GOP half -- has marginalized itself WRT presidential appointments, turning it into a veritable black hole of appointees. The Senate neither advises, consents or dissents, leaving the President little choice in the matter.

The GOP did the same thing to Clinton. Then the crybabies whined, loudly, about things when a very few of Bush fils' appointments were turned down by the Senate. And following Mr. Obama's inauguration, the GOP resumed its prior practice...in spades.

The GOP could, of course, easily "demarginalize" the Senate and start processing the backlog of unconfirmed presidential appointments, something like 48 judicial nominees and 240 executive branch nominees, as of July 2010. No idea how that's increased in the 18 months that have transpired since.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/judicial_confirmations.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/img/congressionalnomineesgraphs1.png

There's an easy solution available , boys...and one that doesn't involve whining.

Keith Wilson
01-04-2012, 07:38 PM
About time Obama stopped putting up with this kind of crap. Cordray would be confirmed easily if the Republicans didn't filibuster even bringing it to a vote.


https://motherjones.com/files/images/recess.jpg

LeeG
01-04-2012, 08:15 PM
Maybe Obama is appointing too many socialists

Gerarddm
01-04-2012, 09:46 PM
Remember, next election, vote out every Republican, from every office, at every level. Be patriotic.

Garret
01-04-2012, 09:55 PM
I'm thinking (hoping) this is a sign of Obama saying enough is enough. If so, it's about time.

Garret
01-04-2012, 09:55 PM
Maybe Obama is appointing too many socialists

I think my sarcasm meter just pegged.

Too many bankers is more like it.

Tall Boy
01-05-2012, 05:43 AM
And everyone thinks this is just peachy.....might not be so great if the dictator is a republican next year.......

Garret
01-05-2012, 08:43 AM
And everyone thinks this is just peachy.....might not be so great if the dictator is a republican next year.......

If it is a Rep. in the White House & if the Dems in congress are acting the way the Reps are today, then I'd completely understand. Take a look (again) at the chart in post #8. What's happening is pure BS - like spoiled little kids in a sandbox whining about toys.

For our country to work, there has to be some method of compromising. That ain't happening & we will all pay for it - if not now, then down the road.

BA.Barcolounger
01-05-2012, 09:01 AM
December 19, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC

RE: NLRB Nominations


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to urge you not to undermine the Senate’s advice and consent role by attempting to place your recently announced nominees to National Labor Relations Board, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, in those positions through recess appointments. Moreover, we urge to instead allow for a full and thorough review of their qualifications through regular order in the Senate.

Appointments to the NLRB have traditionally been made through prior agreement of both parties to ensure that any group of nominees placed on the board represents an appropriate political and philosophical balance. Indeed, the very statutory design of the Board is meant to ensure a basic level of bipartisanship in the appointment of Members. As you are undoubtedly aware, appointments to Board that depart from this tradition have resulted in some of the most contentious, divisive struggles we face in the Senate. Your controversial recess appointment of NLRB Member Craig Becker is an example of an NLRB nominee having been appointed over the objection of the Senate and the result of that decision has been unending controversy throughout Member Becker’s entire term on the Board, which has undermined the credibility of the entire NLRB.

We urge you to avoid attempting to give your latest NLRB nominees - Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin - recess appointments at any point, especially during the mandatory adjournment between sessions of the 112th Congress, which will undoubtedly be very brief. While some have publicly suggested doing so would be an appropriate course of action with regard to other nominations, it would, at the very least, set a dangerous
precedent that would most certainly be exploited in future cases to further marginalize the Senate’s role in confirming nominees and could needlessly provoke a constitutional conflict between the Senate and the White House.
We are certain that we all want to avoid any further conflict over additional recess appointments to the NLRB. It would be especially unfortunate if the Senate was never given an opportunity to fully explore their qualifications and suitability to be Members of the NLRB through a careful and deliberative hearings and confirmation process.
Thank you for your attention regarding this important matter.

Sincerely,
# # #

Senate Republicans
Capitol Hill

Dear Senators;

Please look at the following picture.

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eplatter/common/images/0605-04.jpg

Then punch yourselves in the face, you hypocritical dickwipes.

Have a nice day.
-Barack Obama

Mrleft8
01-05-2012, 09:11 AM
Sounds to me like the senate republicans are threatening the president. Probably not a great idea right now considering that they came out of the last bit of republican obstructionist tactics looking pretty good in comparison to their house buddies..... But then again..... They are beholden to their corporate overlords....

Concordia 33
01-05-2012, 10:26 AM
At one time, it took some evidence of disqualification or genuine unsuitability, to deny a presidential nomination his appointment.

These days, the same technique is used to simply prevent implementation of a congressionally passed law that a minority doesn't like. From all I can see, the Republicans have nothing against this guy... they just hate the idea of a consumer protection agency.

Wonder which of their patrons don't like it, either.

Bolton though controversial was hardly "unsuitable". Do not mistake my words as unconditional endorsement of his appointment, as President Bush made some odd nominations during his presidency, however, is seems as though the Democrats "redefined" their agreement about not filibustering once his nomination occurred. Here is what the Democratic leadership did:


On March 7, 2005, Bolton was nominated to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). As a result of a Democratic filibuster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster), he was recess-appointed to the post on August 1, 2005. Bolton's nomination received strong support from Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) but faced heavy opposition from Democrats due initially to concerns about his strongly expressed views on the United Nations.
Holding a 10-8 majority in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (tasked with vetting ambassadorial nominees), the Republican leadership hoped to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate with a positive recommendation. Concern among some Republicans on the committee, however, prompted the leadership to avoid losing such a motion and instead to send the nomination forward with no recommendation. In the full Senate, Republican support for the nomination remained uncertain, with the most vocal Republican critic, Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio) Senator George V. Voinovich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V._Voinovich), circulating a letter urging his Republican colleagues to oppose the nomination.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#cite_note-59)Democrats insisted that a vote on the nomination was premature, given the resistance of the White House to share classified documents related to Bolton's alleged actions. The Republican leadership moved on two occasions to end debate, but because a supermajority of 60 votes is needed to end debate, the leadership was unable to muster the required votes with only a 55-44 majority in the body. An earlier agreement between moderates in both parties to prevent filibustering of nominees was interpreted by the Democrats to relate only to judicial nominees,[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#cite_note-60) not ambassadorships, although the leader of the effort, Sen. John McCain, said the spirit of the agreement was to include all nominees.
On November 9, 2006, Bush, only days after losing both houses to a Democratic majority, sent the nomination[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#cite_note-61) for Bolton to continue as representative for the United States at the UN.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#cite_note-62) He said: "I believe that the leaders of both political parties must try to work through our differences. And I believe we will be able to work through differences. I reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country."

Gerarddm
01-05-2012, 10:54 AM
This whole idea of "pro-forma" sessions is nonsense, no matter who does it. It is travesty of reality. I would think the Senate would be ashamed. I would be wrong.

Tall Boy
01-05-2012, 11:04 AM
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5113-video-democrats-argue-to-preserve-minority-rights-in-the-senate

Great vidio clips.............

wardd
01-05-2012, 11:10 AM
they don't need a sense of shame as they only associate with other like minded people

Lew Barrett
01-05-2012, 12:01 PM
they don't need a sense of shame as they only associate with other like minded people

True, that. Unconscionable and transparent.