HURRAY!!! Obama makes recess appointment of Cordray to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Forums: Politics, Us Politics, About Time, Consumer News, Cfpb
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Jan. 04, 2012
Obama makes recess appointment of Cordray to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Lesley Clark | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: January 04, 2012 12:53:33 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama today will announce the recess appointment of his choice to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, setting up a pitched battle with congressional Republicans who oppose the new agency.

Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray was aboard Air Force One with Obama for a trip to Ohio, where White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer – in a Tweet titled “We Can’t Wait” -- said Obama would announce the appointment.

Senate Republicans last month blocked a confirmation vote on Cordray and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell ripped into Obama for making what he called an "unprecedented recess" appointment – because the Senate is not in official recess. Traditionally, McConnell said, presidents make such appointments only when the Senate is in recess of 10 days or longer.

Obama, McConnell said, “has arrogantly circumvented the American people’’ by making the recess appointment.

"Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch," McConnell warned.

But Pfeiffer in a White House blog entry said Senate Republicans had created a “gimmick” to prevent Obama from exercising his recess appointment authority.

“You might hear some folks across the aisle criticize this ‘recess appointment,’ Pfeiffer said. “It’s probably the same folks who don’t think we need a tough consumer watchdog in the first place.”

The back and forth over Cordray underscores the partisan fighting that has characterized every development of the new consumer protection bureau, the most tangible government response to the nation's 2008 economic meltdown.

In a press conference after Cordray was blocked, Obama appeared to leave the door open for a possible recess appointment when lawmakers were gone for the holidays.

"We are not giving up on this," he said. "We are going to keep on going at it. We are not going to allow politics as usual on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of American consumers being protected."

Created by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law in 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau serves as America's beat cop against deceptive, abusive and predatory loan products in the financial marketplace.

Republicans have opposed the agency from the start, arguing it will hamper job growth. House Speaker John Boehner in a statement said the agency is “bad for jobs and bad for the economy” and charged that Obama had acted beyond the bounds of his authority.

“I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate,” he said.

Consumer advocates hailed the appointment, saying that the watchdog agency could begin doing its work.

“American consumers can not wait any longer while Senate Republicans and industry lobbyists play games with the nomination process,” said Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 2,683 • Replies: 36

Its about time he showed some balls.

0 Replies

His appointments are easily more informative than his statements.

1 Reply

@roger,

yeah..
His appointment easily shows that Congress is not doing it's job. Much more so than his statements have done.

0 Replies

It's about time. He also filled the NLRB today.

I hope this signals a new era of confrontation from Obama, and that this becomes one of the defining points of his campaign - that we, the Country, have given the GOP the chance to be principled members of the minority (during their turn to not run things for a while), and they have failed spectacularly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Didn't Bush do the same multiple times?

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

One of the issues is the pro forma gaveling into session of Congress that is occurring to try to prevent Obama from making these appointments.

The argument is Congress is in session because a few members are showing up every couple of days to drop the gavel and then adjourn a minute later. As the Obama legal team pointed out, it is Congress that is attempting the end run by not conducting business but merely claiming to be in session to prevent the President from using a Constitutional power granted to him.

Since there is no definition of recess it could be an interesting legal fight if it comes to it. Clearly the media considers Congress to be in recess since they announced it was out for it's holiday recess.

0 Replies

Obama's recent display of 'testicular fortitude' reminds me of the playground kid that gets bullied for 4 yea . . hours straight, scrapes himself off of the dusty ground, wipes the blood from his swollen face, and flips off the bullies before diving into his mom's mini van as it speeds by with the door open.

Then on the drive home he signs a bill that allows the government to detain American citizens indefinitely without due process. I have to say, this wasn't the change I was looking for. I'm growing less and less enamored.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Didn't Bush do the same multiple times?

Just saw it on the news on MSNBC, something like 62 times vs. 32 of Obama's. (or thereabouts)

I like it for all the reasons listed above, like even more the republicans howling about it.

0 Replies

@Questioner,

Quote:

Then on the drive home he signs a bill that allows the government to detain American citizens indefinitely without due process. I have to say, this wasn't the change I was looking for. I'm growing less and less enamored.

I haven't really kept up with this side of Obama's policies as they have discouraged me from the start. My only consolation is that anyone else who ran or is running would not do any better and a good deal worse.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/recess-graph.png

0 Replies

I've said this enough that I know it's broken record time, but...

Obama campaigned on a platform of cooperation and bipartsanship, working together to actually get things done.

The Republicans wanted nothing to do with that, and as president, but not dictator, there was only so much he could do about their recalcitrance.

Additionally, and importantly, he had to continue to TRY to work with them until it became abundantly clear to everyone that he was trying and the Republicans were just being obstructionist, without a larger goal of making the country better. Just trying to block HIM and play politics.

It's become abundantly clear, but in a general way (not just to the politics wonks) only recently.

NOW -- after it's become abundantly clear -- he can say "OK, I tried my best to cooperate but the Republicans would not, so now I have to play hardball, as much as I wanted to avoid it and as hard as I've worked on the alternatives."

And then that becomes a narrative in the campaign. Republicans can't realistically squeal about him being mean after their three years of opposing anything he's proposed because he's proposed it.

That doesn't mean they won't squeal of course, but that the baseline expectations are such (Obama is weak, Obama gives in to Republicans, Obama just wants everyone to get along) that the squealing is unlikely to strike a chord. It will become more about what he's doing -- in this case, trying to protect consumers, which is a worthy thing to do (I like Cordray btw) -- than how he's doing it. And will re-focus on how much he HAS done, and how much remains to be done (read: he will get the rest of it done, if he's re-elected).

3 Replies

@sozobe,

I think that's a good analysis. The framers had no idea, of course, of what party politics (it did not exist as we know it) would mean, nor what electioneering would become more than 200 years later. In the 1790s and the early 1800s, a candidate likely spoke to his potential constuents once. The candidates would travel from one town to another, and on the frontier, they would stand up on a stump in the newly cleared area, and give their stump speech. This is not to say that that was any better than what we have now. David Crockett was a highly successful campaigner, good at the stump speech and good at trading quips with his opponents. He was a miserable Representative, though, and the voters soon realized this. He was twice elected to the House, but from two different districts, and the third time he said that if he were not elected, the voters could go to hell and he'd go to Texas. Well, they didn't and he did, and likely he went to hell himself not long after.

These days, the candidate is always playing to his or her entire potential electorate. They go directly from the swearing in to the grandstand and begin campaigning for the next election. They are far more concerned with their image that what they can accomplish. Certainly this is not necessarily true of every one of them, but i'd say it is true of the majority of them. For more than two years now, the Republican candidates have been playing to what they assume is their base, which in many cases means the tea baggers. That's the hysterical, reactionary wing of the party. We can't know if the tea baggers day is over. Only the next election will tell us if this obstructionism still plays well with Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

It forces them into process arguments while he focuses on substance arguments. A political masterstroke on the part of the WH...

I do wonder what defense their lawyers are going to mount in the inevitable lawsuits that will follow. One funny point - the 'injured' party, the Senate, sure isn't going to sue!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Republicans can't realistically squeal about him being mean after their three years of opposing anything he's proposed because he's proposed it.

That doesn't mean they won't squeal of course, but that the baseline expectations are such (Obama is weak, Obama gives in to Republicans, Obama just wants everyone to get along) that the squealing is unlikely to strike a chord.

I admire your sense of optimism, but I see no reason why any of that will actually happen. The Republicans are already saying that Obama is subverting the constitution and attacking the system of checks-and-balances while defying the will of the American people -- complete and utter hogwash as well as rank hypocrisy, to be sure, but it's the kind of narrative that always plays well outside the fact-based community.

As for those who think Obama is weak and that he gives into the Republicans too easily, the people who believe that are disenchanted former Obama supporters, not conservatives (they blame the GOP for being too accommodating). The disenchanted masses are the ones who are asking right now: "what took him so long?"

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Republicans can't realistically squeal about him being mean after their three years of opposing anything he's proposed because he's proposed it.

That doesn't mean they won't squeal of course, but that the baseline expectations are such (Obama is weak, Obama gives in to Republicans, Obama just wants everyone to get along) that the squealing is unlikely to strike a chord.

I admire your sense of optimism, but I see no reason why any of that will actually happen. The Republicans are already saying that Obama is subverting the constitution and attacking the system of checks-and-balances while defying the will of the American people -- complete and utter hogwash as well as rank hypocrisy, to be sure, but it's the kind of narrative that always plays well outside the fact-based community.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that most 'regular' folks will have a hard time understanding the subtleties here, and the Dems can effectively point out how many recess appointments past presidents have had. And a deeper conversation into why it is 'subverting the Constitution' is a loser for them as well:

GOP: Obama is destroying the Constitution!

Public: How?

GOP: By making Recess appointments when we don't think he should be able to do so!

Public: why didn't Obama's nominees get confirmed in the normal process, by the Senate?

GOP: because... um... we are preventing a vote on those nominees.

Public: Oh, because they are crazy, or have some sort of socialist leanings or something?

GOP: er.. no, we've vowed to prevent ALL nominees to these positions, because we don't agree with the formation of the CPFB at all, and we don't want the NLRB to function at all.

Public: so, you're sort of subverting the 'advise and consent' part of the Constitution through tricks, to keep Obama from getting anyone nominated to positions - something every president has the right to do?

GOP: ****.

Quote:

As for those who think Obama is weak and that he gives into the Republicans too easily, the people who believe that are disenchanted former Obama supporters, not conservatives (they blame the GOP for being too accommodating). The disenchanted masses are the ones who are asking right now: "what took him so long?"

That's totally true - but, better late than never, and an entire year of confrontation will do a lot to change that narrative.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I fear you give the Public far too much credit. Here is how I can easily see that same conversation going:

GOP: Obama is destroying the constitution!

Right Wingers: HELL YES HE IS, THAT KENYAN-BORN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SHOULD BE DEPORTED AND SHOT! RUMSFELD 2012!

Left Wingers: Every Republican from the first to last has been an utter war-mongering moron with nice hair.

Independents: I'm not playing anymore.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that most 'regular' folks will have a hard time understanding the subtleties here, and the Dems can effectively point out how many recess appointments past presidents have had.

It's so cute that you think the Democrats have effectively pointed out anything.

1 Reply

I agree that Cyclo is being far too optomistic. I though Soz analyzed it well, but i didn't buy into her predictions, which is why i posted what i did. The members of Congress--the House at least--campaign continuously, Republicans and Democrats. Whether or not the Republicans can sell their narrative remains to be seen. If they do, i suspect it will be because they are attempting to sell it to the far right of the party, and the hysterical reactionaries, a.k.a. the tea baggers. You know, the ones willing to believe anything which brings Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party into disrepute?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that most 'regular' folks will have a hard time understanding the subtleties here, and the Dems can effectively point out how many recess appointments past presidents have had.

It's so cute that you think the Democrats have effectively pointed out anything.

Oh, c'mon. They have had some success in this area in the past, and the GOP is unpopular and untrusted on these issues in polling over the last year.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

HURRAY!!! Obama makes recess appointment of Cordray to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know