Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,090 posts)
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:05 AM Jan 2012

Clarence Page: Why Obama's recess battle really matters

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-oped-0111-page-20120111,0,7223761.story

Why Obama's recess battle really matters
Fight with Congress is about a lot more than whether one man gets a new job

President Barack Obama announces Richard Cordray as the new consumer financial protection watchdog during a Jan. 4 trip to Cleveland, Ohio. (Kevin Lamarque, Reuters photo / January 4, 2012)

January 11, 2012


It's easy to ignore President Barack Obama's dispute with Senate Republicans over his recess appointments if you don't care what the government is doing with your money.

But if you do, this fight is about a lot more than whether one man gets a new job.

It's about such heavy-duty constitutional questions as how far an embattled president can go to perform his job despite cynical lawmakers who leave no tricks up their sleeves in order to stop him.

It's also about serious policy questions, like whether weaker regulations and oversight can best prevent financial crises like the 2008 meltdown — which occurred partly because of weak regulations and oversight.


And, if that heady stuff is still too boring for you, consider at least the entertainment value of this kerfuffle. Watching Senate Republicans and the president block and dodge each other over recess appointments rivals the zaniness of a Road Runner cartoon.

snip//

Either way, the Cordray fight joins other recent events in signaling a less conciliatory Barack Obama. He is framing this battle as a fight against obstructionist Republicans who stage phony sessions to defend big banks against middle-class Americans. Even if Obama were to lose in the Supreme Court, he stands an excellent chance with the court of public opinion.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clarence Page: Why Obama's recess battle really matters (Original Post) babylonsister Jan 2012 OP
K and R thanks for posting..nt Stuart G Jan 2012 #1
When the dust settles zipplewrath Jan 2012 #2
+ 1 n/t jaysunb Jan 2012 #3
Extremely Bad Idea backtomn Jan 2012 #4
would a presumable president romney SemperEadem Jan 2012 #6
It will boil down to a paralimentary gimmick vs the US Constitution.... Historic NY Jan 2012 #5

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
2. When the dust settles
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:32 AM
Jan 2012

There is a very legitimate discussion to be had here, one that affects both democrats and republicans and their behavior when in the minority. I understand the usefulness of blocking particular appointments. However, we should probably create a "short list" of positions that cannot be blocked without a full vote of the senate. It would be a rather high level list, and limited only to those officers without whom some department or agency cannot function at all. NLRB is a good example, in that they would cease to be able to function at all without a quorum of appointees. The VP slot, when vacated should be one as well. The president should have some set time limit to choose a replacement, and the senate should have a time limit to have a vote on him by the full senate. Wouldn't even have to be "whirlwind", and we could measure these times in months, upward of 6 I'd think. But I'd probably include every single cabinet officer as well as several others (CIA, CJCS, as well as some lower level ones). There would be plenty of positions left for them to never approve, and with the judiciary, I'd probably only require that some minimum number of slots be continuously filled.

But we's a got ta do sumpin folks.

backtomn

(482 posts)
4. Extremely Bad Idea
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:14 AM
Jan 2012

If you are going open the door on this one, where does it end?? What if the Repubs win in November and President Romney decides to recess-appoint a federal judge or Supreme Court justice, without any discussion with the Senate? What if he doesn't even wait for a recess. This type of thing can swing both ways......and we will hate being on the business end of it.

SemperEadem

(8,053 posts)
6. would a presumable president romney
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:59 AM
Jan 2012

(ugh, my stomach just lurched at that thought) have the same intense level of obstruction and uncooperativeness with his congress as this one has had with his to the point where his ONLY alternative to get things done was to resort to recess appointments?

The only reason why Obama went this route was because of the obstruction from the thugs. Period. Had they done their effin' jobs like they were sent there to do, this wouldn't have gone down.

It would also say a lot about romney reaching for recess appointments as a first resort and not a last one.

Historic NY

(37,453 posts)
5. It will boil down to a paralimentary gimmick vs the US Constitution....
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:25 AM
Jan 2012

I think the constitution is on the Presidents side in this instance.

what really makes it special is all the Repukes claiming they going to do something once the congress is back in session....oops.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Clarence Page: Why Obama...