Recess Appointments?

Jonathan Bernstein says it could help the President's credibility.

I argued over at the Plum Line yesterday that Barack Obama should fight back against Republican obstruction by making a recess appointment right now, even though House Republicans are preventing a proper recess through procedural gimmickry, and even though George W. Bush respected precedent and did not make any recess appointments when Senate Democrats used similar tactics in 2007-2008 (details there, and in this earlier post; see also Ari Berman's arguments). The argument I made over there, which I think is a reasonable one, is that there's a huge difference between action to block appointments taken by a majority of the Senate compared to action taken by the House, which has no Constitutional role in confirmations.

Bernstein argues that a handful of recess appointments despite creative House GOP obstruction could lend credence to Obama's willingness to fight back, without much takeaway from the "reasonable one" image he seems obsessed with maintaining above all else. 

Simply put, House Republicans will squawk, and Obama could use recess appointments to show he isn't afraid of that.  In March 2010 he made 15 recess appointments to "send a message" to Republicans to stop stalling. Confirmations to offices at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Office of the Comptroller, commerce secretary, a long list of federal judicial positions and of course the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are still held up by what amounts to a procedural farce.

Both Clinton and Bush Jr. made more than 100 recess appointments each, despite facing less opposition from the Senate.  Today's Republicans have made it clear they'll stall for two full terms if they can.  And as Bernstein points out, this is the House holding things up now, not the Senate.

It's hard to see what the President is waiting for.

 

Recess Appointments?

Jonathan Bernstein says it could help the President's credibility.

I argued over at the Plum Line yesterday that Barack Obama should fight back against Republican obstruction by making a recess appointment right now, even though House Republicans are preventing a proper recess through procedural gimmickry, and even though George W. Bush respected precedent and did not make any recess appointments when Senate Democrats used similar tactics in 2007-2008 (details there, and in this earlier post; see also Ari Berman's arguments). The argument I made over there, which I think is a reasonable one, is that there's a huge difference between action to block appointments taken by a majority of the Senate compared to action taken by the House, which has no Constitutional role in confirmations.

Bernstein argues that a handful of recess appointments despite creative House GOP obstruction could lend credence to Obama's willingness to fight back, without much takeaway from the "reasonable one" image he seems obsessed with maintaining above all else. 

Simply put, House Republicans will squawk, and Obama could use recess appointments to show he isn't afraid of that.  In March 2010 he made 15 recess appointments to "send a message" to Republicans to stop stalling. Confirmations to offices at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Office of the Comptroller, commerce secretary, a long list of federal judicial positions and of course the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are still held up by what amounts to a procedural farce.

Both Clinton and Bush Jr. made more than 100 recess appointments each, despite facing less opposition from the Senate.  Today's Republicans have made it clear they'll stall for two full terms if they can.  And as Bernstein points out, this is the House holding things up now, not the Senate.

It's hard to see what the President is waiting for.

 

Recess Appointments?

Jonathan Bernstein says it could help the President's credibility.

I argued over at the Plum Line yesterday that Barack Obama should fight back against Republican obstruction by making a recess appointment right now, even though House Republicans are preventing a proper recess through procedural gimmickry, and even though George W. Bush respected precedent and did not make any recess appointments when Senate Democrats used similar tactics in 2007-2008 (details there, and in this earlier post; see also Ari Berman's arguments). The argument I made over there, which I think is a reasonable one, is that there's a huge difference between action to block appointments taken by a majority of the Senate compared to action taken by the House, which has no Constitutional role in confirmations.

Bernstein argues that a handful of recess appointments despite creative House GOP obstruction could lend credence to Obama's willingness to fight back, without much takeaway from the "reasonable one" image he seems obsessed with maintaining above all else. 

Simply put, House Republicans will squawk, and Obama could use recess appointments to show he isn't afraid of that.  In March 2010 he made 15 recess appointments to "send a message" to Republicans to stop stalling. Confirmations to offices at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Office of the Comptroller, commerce secretary, a long list of federal judicial positions and of course the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are still held up by what amounts to a procedural farce.

Both Clinton and Bush Jr. made more than 100 recess appointments each, despite facing less opposition from the Senate.  Today's Republicans have made it clear they'll stall for two full terms if they can.  And as Bernstein points out, this is the House holding things up now, not the Senate.

It's hard to see what the President is waiting for.

 

Thursday Immigration Blog Roundup

Talk of immigration-related lawsuits filled the news this week, and it all started with a television interview that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave overseas in Ecuador.

The rather obscure interview footage most likely would have never made it into American news, except for a brief, but politically explosive, remark Clinton made on tape when the discussion turned to Senate Bill 1070. Set to take effect July 28, the bill passed in Arizona will allow police officers to question and detain anyone whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is an undocumented immigrant.

There's more...

Presidential Zeitgeist: A Timeline Of Public Opinion, 1998 to 2010

1998:  "Bill Clinton may not be husband of the year, but he sure knows how to be president.  His enemies are impeaching him for no good reason, and he's still getting the job done."

2000:  "The cold war is over.  The budget is in surplus.  The economy is okay.  How hard can it be to be president these days?  George W. Bush looks harmless enough, like his old man.  Let's put things on cruise control for a while.  Besides, Al Gore is such a know-it-all."

August 2001:  "Bush got his tax cuts passed, and now he seems to be on permanent vacation. How much brush can there be on that 'ranch' of his?  You know, this guy really is a lightweight.  I wonder if we can do better next time around. . ."

September 2001:  "Did you see Bush standing in the rubble with his big bullhorn?  Now there's a man who won't back down from the terrorists.  So he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.  That's why he hired guys like Donald Rumsfeld."

2002:  "There are so many people in the world who want to kill us!  Bush is keeping us safe.  He'll get bin Laden one of these days.  We just need to trust him."

2003:  "Did you see Bush on that aircraft carrier?  Now that's a president.  He kicked Saddam Hussein's tail all the way to Bagdad.  After we mop up a few more terrorists, we'll be back on Easy Street."

2004:  "This Iraq war isn't going very well, but John Kerry won't even defend himself, let alone the rest of us.  I'm holding my nose and voting for Bush again.  Politics is beginning to give me a headache, anyway.  What's on cable tonight?"

2005:  "George Bush wants to do what?  Privatize Social Security?  I don't think so.  Why doesn't he just get us out of Iraq?  Oh, that's right -- he hired 'Brownie' to manage hurricane relief.  Well, what do you expect from a guy who slept through a tsunami?"

2006:  "Only two short years till we send Bush's ass back to Texas.  In the meantime, let's see if the Democrats in Washington can make some changes.  By the way, what does their party actually stand for?  'Reply hazy,' says my Magic 8 Ball."

2008:  "I'm voting Democratic this year -- period.  After eight years of Bush, what choice do I have?  And if Barack Obama wants to 'change the tone in Washington'?  Whatever, boss.  Knock yourself out down there.  Just make sure you fix the damn economy and act presidential.  And by 'acting presidential', I don't mean putting on a flight suit like Bush did.  I mean doing your job -- like Clinton did."

2009:  "I kind of like Barack Obama, but what does the man really stand for?  He seems to think Republican ideas are just as good as Democratic ones.  Maybe he's right. . ."

2010:  "Do I want to see a Republican in the White House?  Not really.  But somebody needs to get a handle on things.  I'm keeping all my options open.  One thing, though -- no teabaggers.  They're crazy."

From my blog: http://partisandawn.wordpress.com/

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads