• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama takes appointments into his own hands

Faster horses

Well-known member
WASHINGTON – Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.

The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him.

"I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government," Obama said in a statement.

The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess.

Obama went ahead anyway, while also choosing a second member for the labor board so that four of its five slots will be filled. The board, which referees labor-management disputes, has had a majority of its seats vacant for more than two years, slowing its work and raising questions about the legality of its rulings.

Overall, Obama's appointments will take place throughout the week, allowing people to make the transition to their new jobs, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. The news of Becker's appointment drew the bulk of the ire from Republicans.

"Once again the administration showed that it had little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama's foe in the 2008 presidential election. "This is clear payback by the administration to organized labor."

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have made recess appointments, which circumvents the Senate's authority to confirm nominees, when they could not overcome delays. President George W. Bush made more than 170 such appointments in his two-term presidency. President Bill Clinton made nearly 140.

Obama had been on record as warning of recess appointments if the Senate didn't act. He followed through at the end of a week in which his political standing was significantly bolstered by the party-line passage of a historic health care bill, a student loan overhaul and a hard-fought nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

The White House dropped the news in a press release on a quiet Saturday, with Obama at Camp David and lawmakers home in their districts.

The recess appointments mean the 15 people could serve in their jobs through the end of 2011, when the next Senate finishes its term. A recess appointment ends at the completion of the next Senate session or when a person is nominated and confirmed to the job, whichever comes first.

Obama filled two posts at the Treasury Department: Jeffrey Goldstein as under secretary for domestic finance and Michael Mundaca as assistant secretary for tax policy. He singled them out: "At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months."

On Becker, Republicans have held up his confirmation for months, saying they fear he would circumvent Congress to make labor laws more union-friendly.

Democrats had failed to overcome Republican delaying tactics on Becker's nomination, and all 41 GOP senators wrote to Obama on Thursday urging him not to appoint Becker over the break — to no avail. Becker is a top lawyer at the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.

Labor unions were especially keen on getting Becker installed on the board that is responsible for certifying union elections and addressing unfair labor practices. Under a Democratic majority, the labor board could decide cases or make new rules that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. The board could allow speeded-up union elections that give employers less time to counter organizing drives.

The other pro-union lawyer Obama named to the board, Mark Pearce, has not faced opposition from Republicans.

The White House says its appointees have been awaiting a vote for an average of seven months.

Obama named three people to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which has also been operating without a quorum.

The Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid, welcomed Obama's move. "Regrettably, Senate Republicans have dedicated themselves to a failed strategy to cripple President Obama's economic initiatives by stalling key administration nominees at every turn," said Reid, the majority leader from Nevada.

Obama and Democratic leaders say he faces more obstruction, in terms of the number of pending nominees and the length of their delay in getting a vote, than Bush did. The hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington began long before Obama's presidency but remains as entrenched as ever, if not worse, during his term.

Already in a struggle with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over a financial overhaul, Obama now has another one over Becker. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete," the chamber said in a statement.

In February, Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes they needed to push through Becker's nomination. Two Democrats joined Republicans to halt Becker.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that Obama's move is "another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition."

___
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
So how many recess appointments did GW make in his eight years in office? I'll give you a hint it was thirty more then Clinton made in his eight years.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
The next time you get stopped for speeding or some other infraction just tell the cop that other people were doing it also.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bullhauler said:
So how many recess appointments did GW make in his eight years in office? I'll give you a hint it was thirty more then Clinton made in his eight years.

Bullhaulers- Paranoids don't want to read that part...They'd like to blame this all as something new thought up by Obama in a great conspiracy....

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have made recess appointments, which circumvents the Senate's authority to confirm nominees, when they could not overcome delays. President George W. Bush made more than 170 such appointments in his two-term presidency. President Bill Clinton made nearly 140.

Seems like in the past 20 years of partisanship taking place of statesmanship with our Senate and Congress this is becoming the norm rather than the exception...

The ones who should be hung out to dry is this partisan Congress-Dems and Repubs- for not doing their jobs and filling the slots...Either vote yes or no-- don't just bring many of these agencies to a standstill so you can do partisan grandstanding...

I don't believe some Senator in Utah or California, for their own partisan grandstanding or financial gain (lobbyiest monies), should be allowed single handedily to block Presidential appointments coming to a vote- and hold the country hostage until they get their way with their pet project or pork...

Its been done by both Dems and Repubs and can't help but hurt the country thru failure to maintain coherence or any leadership in the agencies...

The idea for Senate confirmation was to have an up or down vote on qualifications- not play partisan games for their personal gains...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Say Oldtimer if the Dems are so supportive of Recess Appointments why did this happen

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), in a showdown with the White House over executive branch nominations, refused yesterday to formally adjourn the chamber for a planned two-week Thanksgiving break in order to thwart President Bush's ability to make recess appointments.

Rather than allowing the Senate to take a full break, Reid employed a rarely used parliamentary tactic by scheduling "pro forma" sessions twice a week until early December, when Congress returns for three weeks of work. Under that plan, a few senators, perhaps just one Democrat and one Republican, will briefly open the chamber for debate during the next two weeks.

The move blocks Bush's ability to make recess appointments, which would allow his choices to serve out the remainder of Bush's term.
Just another in the long line of Do as we say not as we do examples. :roll:

I guess the Dems don't believe in Lead by example do they Oldtimer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Say Oldtimer if the Dems are so supportive of Recess Appointments why did this happen

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), in a showdown with the White House over executive branch nominations, refused yesterday to formally adjourn the chamber for a planned two-week Thanksgiving break in order to thwart President Bush's ability to make recess appointments.

Rather than allowing the Senate to take a full break, Reid employed a rarely used parliamentary tactic by scheduling "pro forma" sessions twice a week until early December, when Congress returns for three weeks of work. Under that plan, a few senators, perhaps just one Democrat and one Republican, will briefly open the chamber for debate during the next two weeks.

The move blocks Bush's ability to make recess appointments, which would allow his choices to serve out the remainder of Bush's term.
Just another in the long line of Do as we say not as we do examples. :roll:

I guess the Dems don't believe in Lead by example do they Oldtimer?

And the Repubs would do the same if they were in the majority and could...
Thats exactly what I said...

Seems like in the past 20 years of partisanship taking place of statesmanship with our Senate and Congress this is becoming the norm rather than the exception...

The ones who should be hung out to dry is this partisan Congress-Dems and Repubs- for not doing their jobs and filling the slots...Either vote yes or no-- don't just bring many of these agencies to a standstill so you can do partisan grandstanding...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Say Oldtimer if the Dems are so supportive of Recess Appointments why did this happen

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), in a showdown with the White House over executive branch nominations, refused yesterday to formally adjourn the chamber for a planned two-week Thanksgiving break in order to thwart President Bush's ability to make recess appointments.

Rather than allowing the Senate to take a full break, Reid employed a rarely used parliamentary tactic by scheduling "pro forma" sessions twice a week until early December, when Congress returns for three weeks of work. Under that plan, a few senators, perhaps just one Democrat and one Republican, will briefly open the chamber for debate during the next two weeks.

The move blocks Bush's ability to make recess appointments, which would allow his choices to serve out the remainder of Bush's term.
Just another in the long line of Do as we say not as we do examples. :roll:

I guess the Dems don't believe in Lead by example do they Oldtimer?

And the Repubs would do the same if they were in the majority and could...
Thats exactly what I said...

Seems like in the past 20 years of partisanship taking place of statesmanship with our Senate and Congress this is becoming the norm rather than the exception...

The ones who should be hung out to dry is this partisan Congress-Dems and Repubs- for not doing their jobs and filling the slots...Either vote yes or no-- don't just bring many of these agencies to a standstill so you can do partisan grandstanding...

Just wonder here Oldtimer but if Obama wanted these guys approved why weren't they. Didn't He and Reid have a FILIBUSTER PROOF SENATE up until Scott Brown was elected. That was about a year after he took office wasn't it? :? Wouldn't it have taken a few Dems voting NO to keep Obama's appointments from being approved? :? Why did they vote NO? :? Could it be that they saw Obama's appointees to be a bit radical or in the case of Becker to connected to Unions to be fair to the business side of his job? :nod: Remember Becker was a top lawyer for the SEIU and the AFL- CIO. Honestly it looks a bit like another payback to the Unions to me as what chance do Business have with this guy's rulings? :???:

You can try blame the Republicans for Obama's lack of movement but with a large Majority in the House and a Filibuster Proof Senate for almost a full year, Your argument is a bit hollow. Face it the Dems were fighting themselves if anything at all was stopped. It was only when Obama got out his Checkbook and started bribing people that he started to get things done. Or was it the crocadile tears about how the Congressmen had to vote for Obamacare to save his Presidency that got things moving? My bet it was the Checkbook backed up by Threats that worked. :wink: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam-- I don't know what its called- but there is a move where one Senator can block/stop a confirmation from coming up to a vote by putting a hold on it...Thats what has been happening both now- and with Bush and with Clinton.. Some of these current appointees haven't been acted on- or had an up/down vote in 7 months..

If you remember one of the Utah (?) Senators threatened to block Secretary of the Interior Salazars confirmation vote until he agreed to revaluate the Depts policy on oil shale development and drilling in sensitive areas....I think I read where Coburn is blocking one or two right now....

One of the reasons our court system is years behind on cases and clogged up-- some judgeships have set open for years- with appointees waiting years for a confirmation hearing...Specter (when he was a Republican and had power) was one of the worst on the judges...

All partisan gamesmenship- and pocketing of Lobbyiest dollars...
 

floyd

Well-known member
Seems like an appointment must come out of committee to the chamber before someone can fillibuster.

As stated earlier, a senator can put a hold on a nominee in committee just because they want to.


The other day generals from all over the world came to testify before the armed services committee & a republican apparently upset with the healthcare vote decided even though these generals travelled a long way he objected to having the hearing.

So...how much money did they piss away with that incident?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam-- I don't know what its called- but there is a move where one Senator can block/stop a confirmation from coming up to a vote by putting a hold on it...Thats what has been happening both now- and with Bush and with Clinton.. Some of these current appointees haven't been acted on- or had an up/down vote in 7 months..

If you remember one of the Utah (?) Senators threatened to block Secretary of the Interior Salazars confirmation vote until he agreed to revaluate the Depts policy on oil shale development and drilling in sensitive areas....I think I read where Coburn is blocking one or two right now....

One of the reasons our court system is years behind on cases and clogged up-- some judgeships have set open for years- with appointees waiting years for a confirmation hearing...Specter (when he was a Republican and had power) was one of the worst on the judges...

All partisan gamesmenship- and pocketing of Lobbyiest dollars...

Sorry Oldtimer but in the case of Becker the full Senate voted and he only got 51 yes votes which meant what Oldtimer? Obama has been getting more than a few Bipartisan votes but to bad for him it is AGANIST what he wants. :wink: So he bribes, threatens or in this case recess appoints, which is why he will go down in History as the most polarized President ever. Well that is if the liberals aren't allowed to scrub US history like Obama seems to be scrubbing the internet. :wink: :roll:
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
They just can't get past good ole' GW can they?

I guarantee when you started this thread you were clueless as to how common it has been done in the past.

McCain sounds like a complete fool in this article too. If he had won the presidency he would have had to of made alot more then fifteen recess appointments by now.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
Faster horses said:
They just can't get past good ole' GW can they?

I guarantee when you started this thread you were clueless as to how common it has been done in the past.

McCain sounds like a complete fool in this article too. If he had won the presidency he would have had to of made alot more then fifteen recess appointments by now.

With a few fingers on the keyboard bullhauler makes it all ok...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
Bullhauler said:
Faster horses said:
They just can't get past good ole' GW can they?

I guarantee when you started this thread you were clueless as to how common it has been done in the past.

McCain sounds like a complete fool in this article too. If he had won the presidency he would have had to of made alot more then fifteen recess appointments by now.

With a few fingers on the keyboard bullhauler makes it all ok...

Larry you have to remember the democraps only operate on half a brain. Only the left side works. :lol:

If most of their mothers would have had abortions. The procedure would have taken place in record time.

You ever notice when you talk to one of these democraps you can't place two fingers straight up and down between their eyes. Thee is no brain there. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
Faster horses said:
They just can't get past good ole' GW can they?

I guarantee when you started this thread you were clueless as to how common it has been done in the past.

McCain sounds like a complete fool in this article too. If he had won the presidency he would have had to of made alot more then fifteen recess appointments by now.

Only if Reid would have allowed the Senate to be ajourned. :wink:
 

VanC

Well-known member
It seems some of you need to read up on your U.S. history before going off half- cocked.

The power to make recess appointments is granted to the President under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The first one was made by George Washington in 1795 when he appointed John Rutledge Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Hundreds of recess appointments have been made since then. The all-time record holder is Predident Reagan, who made 243 recess appointments during his eight years in office. That wasn't a typo. That's 243.

I'm no Obama lover, but, like it or not, he has every right to make these appointments and it's certainly nothing new. Our only recourse is to vote him out or change the Constitution.
 

VanC

Well-known member
Larrry said:
I don't think anyone said he can't, It's the radicals he appointed is the problem

Whad'ya expect? Obama is the most radical president we've ever had, but I suspect you already know that. :lol: Fortunately, recess appointments are only good until the present session of Congress ends. Unfortunately, a person in the right position can do a lot of damage between now and then.

When I read this thread, I got the impression that some folks believed this was something Obama had dreamed up out of the blue. I've been wrong before.
 

Steve

Well-known member
When I read this thread, I got the impression that some folks believed this was something Obama had dreamed up out of the blue. I've been wrong before.

often articles are put up to inform, not start an arguement.. without the internet most of this "news" would never get out..
 

Tam

Well-known member
VanC said:
Larrry said:
I don't think anyone said he can't, It's the radicals he appointed is the problem

Whad'ya expect? Obama is the most radical president we've ever had, but I suspect you already know that. :lol: Fortunately, recess appointments are only good until the present session of Congress ends. Unfortunately, a person in the right position can do a lot of damage between now and then.

When I read this thread, I got the impression that some folks believed this was something Obama had dreamed up out of the blue. I've been wrong before.

Funny how when Bush wanted to do it in his last year the Dems were Outraged and would not allow the Senate to be Ajourned to stop Bush from carrying out something that like you said was his right under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. I think we all know it happens but the Dems are HYPOCRITES when they blocked Bush and clear the way for Obama. :wink: :roll:
 
Top