President to use recess appointment for CFPB :-)

[Intense]

I don't understand WHY people don't get this?

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

Same as Reagan...the Bully pulpit.

Explain your stance. Take it to the people with fact.

Easy.

This stuff has been going on a long enough time that you would think we were used to it by now.

 

[The T]

This is going to end badly. If the President is free to decide that the Senate is in recess, even when they aren't, soon he will bypass the entire "advice and consent" of the Senate. This will be challenged, and Obama will lose.

I think it's obvious when the Senate is in session and when it's not. If you got a guy showing up for 30 seconds every 3 days, that ain't "in session". I got no love for Obama and what he's doing, I hope to God he gets voted out of office next November. But this kind of chicanery really isn't how Washington should be doing it's business.

I can agree with this. It is chicanery and dishonest partisan politics.

 

[The T]

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

Same as Reagan...the Bully pulpit.

Explain your stance. Take it to the people with fact.

Easy.

This stuff has been going on a long enough time that you would think we were used to it by now.

Yeah you'd think some would follow what Reagan did...he loved this Republic and it's people.

 

[Intense]

This is what RDeans Avatar reminds me of. I hope he has the sense to wear a seat belt and a crash helmet, and maybe some padding.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZzKUt4OtE8]In A Yugo - Paul Shanklin - YouTube[/ame]
In A Yugo - Paul Shanklin

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't understand WHY people don't get this?

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

Same as Reagan...the Bully pulpit.

Explain your stance. Take it to the people with fact.

Easy.

The president [whoever] has already explained his stance and taken it to the people and got elected. It's one thing for the opposition to vote against whatever policies he wants to enact, but this kind of stuff really is obstructionist and nobody should be doing it. I hope there is a challenge and it gets adjudicated one way or another. But whether it turns out to be legal or not, it's no way to conduct the people's business.

 

[Intense]

This is going to end badly. If the President is free to decide that the Senate is in recess, even when they aren't, soon he will bypass the entire "advice and consent" of the Senate. This will be challenged, and Obama will lose.

I think it's obvious when the Senate is in session and when it's not. If you got a guy showing up for 30 seconds every 3 days, that ain't "in session". I got no love for Obama and what he's doing, I hope to God he gets voted out of office next November. But this kind of chicanery really isn't how Washington should be doing it's business.

I can agree with this. It is chicanery and dishonest partisan politics.

Actually I don't have a problem with the Policy, provided it is consistent, regardless of which Party is in charge. The Senate has a Right to determine It's own rules. The problem is when the Senate does not operate under the rules it agrees to.

 

[Liability]

No. The filibuster party controls the Senate. You know that. Don't play dumb.

Even you, rdick, cannot be THAT dishonest.

The "filibuster" Party is the minority party (usually that needs to resort to a filibuster to prevent legislation getting enacted when they dislike it or disagree with it.

It is not the Dim Party nor the GOP, you dip shit.

The filibuster Party WAS the Dims not that long ago, moron.

They did not control the Senate when they were in the minority. They DID prevent the majority from proceeding as a majority can usually be expected to proceed.

But when the shoe is on the other foot and the Dims are in the majority, suddenly to hypocritical shits like you, the minority party invoking a filibuster suddenly is in the "wrong" and is the Party "in control." :liar:

You, rdick, have always been a hypocritical little fraud piece of shit. But THAT was an unusually glaring example of your disdain for honesty, integrity, truth and reality.

Why beat around the bush? Tell us what you really think.

Just lay it out there.

I am a fan of diplomacy.

Just ask Bolton.



Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

rdork is a dick and every bit as honest and intelligent as TDM.

 

[The T]

I think it's obvious when the Senate is in session and when it's not. If you got a guy showing up for 30 seconds every 3 days, that ain't "in session". I got no love for Obama and what he's doing, I hope to God he gets voted out of office next November. But this kind of chicanery really isn't how Washington should be doing it's business.

I can agree with this. It is chicanery and dishonest partisan politics.

Actually I don't have a problem with the Policy, provided it is consistent, regardless of which Party is in charge. The Senate has a Right to determine It's own rules. The problem is when the Senate does not operate under the rules it agrees to.

The bolded. Is what I mean. Thanks.

 

[The T]

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

Same as Reagan...the Bully pulpit.

Explain your stance. Take it to the people with fact.

Easy.

The president [whoever] has already explained his stance and taken it to the people and got elected. It's one thing for the opposition to vote against whatever policies he wants to enact, but this kind of stuff really is obstructionist and nobody should be doing it. I hope there is a challenge and it gets adjudicated one way or another. But whether it turns out to be legal or not, it's no way to conduct the people's business.

Yeah the POTUS can be influential if he is in the right to the point that he can get people to correspond with thier Congresscritters to take action.

 

[Intense]

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

Same as Reagan...the Bully pulpit.

Explain your stance. Take it to the people with fact.

Easy.

The president [whoever] has already explained his stance and taken it to the people and got elected. It's one thing for the opposition to vote against whatever policies he wants to enact, but this kind of stuff really is obstructionist and nobody should be doing it. I hope there is a challenge and it gets adjudicated one way or another. But whether it turns out to be legal or not, it's no way to conduct the people's business.

It is not for the President to determine the rules of the Senate. That falls under Separation of Powers. It is not for the President to Ignore or abandon advise and consent, which is a Constitutional Provision. He could not even wait for the Senate to officially in Recess 3 Days, which was all he had to do to make a Recess Appointment. Fail. Are we reduced to a 3rd world Banana Republic now. Is it Banana Split Time?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtD4mn9CeH4]THE BANANA SPLITS - YouTube[/ame]

THE BANANA SPLITS

 

[The T]

This is what RDeans Avatar reminds me of. I hope he has the sense to wear a seat belt and a crash helmet, and maybe some padding.

In A Yugo - Paul Shanklin - YouTube
In A Yugo - Paul Shanklin

 

[The T]

Or have politicians gotten too arrogant that they no longer have to listen to thier constituients except during election years?

 

[Liability]

Mark Levin: 'We Have a Constitutional Crisis' | CNSnews.com

Levin is 100% correct on this matter.

 

[Chris]

The Republicans are against protecting consumers, but in favor of protecting Wall Street.

Nothing ever changes.

 

[daveman]

It seems that this is the new normal, republicans have only themselves to blame. All along Obama has been bringing library books to the republican knife fight, they count on him to play nice in a rigged game. Republicans built this ultra confrontational, ultra destructive political landscape where it is not enough to win, the other guy has to lose, they need to quit whining like spoiled children when they lose.

Yes, the GOP needs to just STFU and do whatever Obama tells them to do.

Right?

 

[daveman]

Do you perform your own prostate exams?

Pssst! I'm not the one offering to send somebody else to kick someone's ass, bitch.

You really are a sissy bedwetter.

"Kick someone's ass"? I was going to send someone to cart you off to one of Obama's concentration camps for conservatives and then to the ovens.

...because you're too big a pussy to do it yourself.

Did you leave your balls with the quartermaster when you mustered out? Or did you ever have any?

 

[daveman]

Wow, ya don't say!

And...?

You retards need to quit acting like opposing the President is treason.

Remember when dissent used to be patriotic? Funny how that stopped in January of 2009.

eh... maybe if rightwingnut, obama-deranged nutters weren't so full of fauxrage when the

president does things that have been done by every president. *shrug*

RPC avg still has him beating the GOP field

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

so it looks like most people don't find the obama deranged credible. this will only help with voters who felt he wasn't putting up a fight with the nutbars.

there is nothing patriotic about obama derangement syndrome.

Obama is not the United States.

We pledge allegiance to the flag, not the President.

Military members swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President.

And the left said dissent was patriotic -- right up until January of 2009.

 

[daveman]

Let me see if I accurately understand conservatives' outrage.

Bush made 170 recess appoints.

This is Obama's 28th recess appointment.

And conservatives are outraged because Obama is circumventing the Congressional confirmation hearings process?

This reminds me of the moment in "Terminator 2" when the terminator (Ahnold) was introduced to John Connor's Mexican friend, Enrique, as 'Uncle Bob.' His reaction?

"Okay!?"
​

MY Outrage has to do with THERE IS NO RECESS, he has no authority to make an appointment.

That's the beauty of it!

He sure looked good at the podium kicking a little butt too.

In other words -- "Fuck the Constitution! Obama is pretty!"

 

[peach174]

The Republicans are against protecting consumers, but in favor of protecting Wall Street.

Nothing ever changes.

No !
They are against a new agency and bigger growth of the Government, of which we can not afford.

 

[Polk]

Nice going Mr. President. Cordray is > qualified by being a former Attorney General. You also DO have the political capital:
pnj.com | National News | Pensacola News Journal

The president also was expected to announce other recess appointments on Wednesday.

Until now, he has made 28. Bush made more than 170 during his presidency. Bill Clinton made almost 140.

Obama's decision to make a recess appointment is certain to cause an uproar from Capitol Hill to Wall Street. He is essentially declaring the Senate's short off-and-on legislative sessions a sham intended to block his appointments.

The above would be true. Also, makes Wall Street banksters & Senate Repubs mad? Must be the right thing to do

Isnt that rich, democrats started the practice and are now crying about it.

Just further evolution of the same broken procedure.