January 04, 2012
— DrewM Yesterday news broke that Obama was going to recess appoint Richard Cordry to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There's just one slight problem, the Senate isn't actually in recess.
Today the Obama administration announced it's rationale for this extraordinary power grab.
Here are the facts: The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.Because of the President’s leadership and decisive action, the American people will have a consumer watchdog fighting tooth and nail on their behalf. The President knows this is a make or break moment for the middle class and he’ll continue to build an economy that’s based on the values of fairness and shared responsibility. Today’s announcement is a critical piece to strengthen the economy and restore the economic security for the middle class and those trying to reach it. Mr. Cordray is the right man for the job and we’re pleased he’s finally in place to continue his important work.
Emphasis mine.
Let's look at the relevant words of Article II, Section II of the Constitution.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Funny, I don't see anything about "effectively" being in recess.
This is a blatant violation of the Constitution and he's doing it simply to pick a fight with congressional Republicans and energize his base.
Part of his strategy is dependent upon the MFM ignoring this power grab and early reports seem to indicate they will come through for him.
As for the politics of this...we're going to see calls for the GOP to begin impeachment proceedings. Let's just not even think about that. It's simply not going to happen and it'll give Obama exactly what he wants. He'll claim that Republicans are focusing on political games instead of helping the American people, blah, blah, blah.
There's really not much the GOP can do. A lawsuit will never work (any court will call it a "political question" and punt) and going nuclear will play into Obama's hands.
Basically Obama is running for President and he wants his opponent to be "Congressional Republicans". Sometimes the best strategy is to skip a fight you want to have and should have simply because simply engaging in it is a win for your opponent.
Think of it as ignoring a comment troll. It's unsatisfying but effective.
Let the GOP candidates take this fight to Obama while the House actually focuses on things like the tax bill that's coming up in 2 months.
Added: The Congressional Research Service has an analysis off the recess appointment power and it doesn't support Obama (pdf).
The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days.10 In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This “Adjournments Clause” provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ....”11 Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated:If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senate’s ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. ... It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant. …
Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.
The logic of the argument laid out in this brief appears to underlie congressional practices, intended to block recess appointments, that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.
Posted by: DrewM at
08:26 AM
| Comments (385)
Post contains 879 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Jean at January 04, 2012 08:29 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose at January 04, 2012 08:30 AM (digkk)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:30 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Inquiring Minds Wanna Know at January 04, 2012 08:30 AM (ACJu8)
Running rapidly out of patience, all around.
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez! at January 04, 2012 08:31 AM (GBXon)
Running rapidly out of patience, all around.
Nothing to add, here. I just think it needs to be repeated.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:31 AM (8y9MW)
Still, the whole thing sucks. Let's have the debate on this guy, expose him for a commie shitweasel, and then wait for the Repubs to cave and confirm him anyway.
Posted by: shillelagh at January 04, 2012 08:32 AM (hRzu2)
Wow. This really sounds like a Cuban, Venezuelan or NoKo press release, doesn't it?
Posted by: Joe Mama at January 04, 2012 08:32 AM (dOsjQ)
1. More useless paperwork
2. ?????
3. Stronger economy!
Posted by: Unconstitutional Czar Gnomes at January 04, 2012 08:32 AM (FUYSU)
If we're the only ones playing by the rules (and, worse, by the rules that the opposition keeps changing as they desire), that kind of means we'll never win- because winning will always be redefined.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:33 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: obama....the scoamf at January 04, 2012 08:33 AM (mfbqu)
I tried to schedule a recess appointment with my dentist. No dice.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 08:33 AM (Qjh0I)
Because of the PresidentÂ’s leadership and decisive action, the American people will have a consumer watchdog fighting tooth and nail on their behalf. The President knows this is a make or break moment for the middle class and heÂ’ll continue to build an economy thatÂ’s based on the values of fairness and shared responsibility. TodayÂ’s announcement is a critical piece to strengthen the economy and restore the economic security for the middle class and those trying to reach it. Mr. Cordray is the right man for the job and weÂ’re pleased heÂ’s finally in place to continue his important work.
That is the nastiest, rankest, sloppiest pile of horse shit I've had the displeasure of viewing in some years. Verbal fodder for imbeciles.
Posted by: maddogg at January 04, 2012 08:34 AM (OlN4e)
First comment about dying on hills, etc.?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2012 08:34 AM (YXmuI)
If the president nominates someone, they should have a hearing and a vote. Period.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 04, 2012 08:34 AM (f9c2L)
I was literally just thinking about writing this story. This is huge-- bigger than a lot of shit they throw down.
Rules only work for people who are inclined to obey them. These assholes need to see the other end of some police action.
Posted by: Truman North at January 04, 2012 08:35 AM (I2LwF)
Because what we need is MOAR GOV'T!
This man makes me want to curse.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:35 AM (8y9MW)
I think you are missing a point though...
Senate DEMOCRATS who have been in Washington a long time will not like this...
They know it sets a Precedent for REPBULICAN Presidents...
Obama is betting the Congress does not have the Cojones for a Constitutional Crises, as they punted on both the 'Natrual Born Citizen' question, and the War Powers Question (bombed Libya)....
But this may be too much for Senate DEMOCRATS to swallow...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 08:35 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 08:35 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 04, 2012 08:35 AM (JxMoP)
As an aside, the timing on this is rather interesting, too. Maybe Obama hoped to get this under the radar with all of the attention on Iowa the morning after the caucuses — or maybe steal some of the thunder from the Republicans. Either works.
Today's insightful analysis by Ed "Two Sheds" Morrissey....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 08:36 AM (3wBRE)
Longest fucking moment in history.
Posted by: Dang at January 04, 2012 08:36 AM (BbX1b)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 04, 2012 08:36 AM (FKQng)
...Or maybe I'll just watch that episode of "Gold Rush" I've been saving.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 08:37 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 08:37 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 04, 2012 08:37 AM (1Jaio)
Besides to say, the patience of the people is not infinite.
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez! at January 04, 2012 08:37 AM (GBXon)
They tried defunding some of his czars and he used a signing statement to overrule them.
Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 08:38 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 08:38 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 04, 2012 08:38 AM (vuzx2)
What exactly would you suggest be done?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 04, 2012 08:39 AM (dXPup)
Meanwhile...
gas is going up and up and up...
And the Republicans are sitting on their thumbs. So many political opportunities whizzing by the GOP day after day.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 08:39 AM (sqkOB)
I probably agree with you.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:39 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Mittens! at January 04, 2012 08:40 AM (l/xhO)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose at January 04, 2012 08:40 AM (digkk)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at January 04, 2012 08:40 AM (fYOZx)
Posted by: maddogg at January 04, 2012 08:40 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 08:40 AM (i6RpT)
In order for a democratic republic to work, you need to have leaders who will voluntarily act in good faith and with respect for the law. Neither Obama not the vast majority of the leadership of the Democrat Party acts in good faith nor respects the law. I fear for the country. We could probably impeach him but he would never be removed. It would be the big bad Republicans feebly attacking the Mighty Invincible Obama.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 08:41 AM (Hx5uv)
Heating oil in the northeast is extremely expensive. It's really bad.
The Republicans could be using this to their advantage. Instead, Joe "The Crippler" Kennedy is using the opportunity to bash "Big Oil" and prop up the generosity of the socialist dictator Hugo Chavez.
...and this is why we will lose in '12.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 08:41 AM (sqkOB)
Team Meteor?
Realize that dying on a Hill is better than drowning in the sea?
Yes, I think we should impeach this skid-mark of a president, and air all the dirty-laundry. Either the people will support us, or there's nothing left worth saving.
And, yes, this is an angry rant, and I may feel differently after I've cooled down, but it's beyond absurd that we continually have to check our values at the door for some perceived possible political gain.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:41 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: toby928© goes cold turkey yet again at January 04, 2012 08:41 AM (GTbGH)
Impeaching Obama is going nowhere, true, but I do not believe that is the sum total of options available to the Republicans.
What about impeaching Cordry?
Or zeroing out the WH operating budget in the next CR? This would be especially valuable if it coincided with Barry's next golfing trip...
Posted by: 18-1 at January 04, 2012 08:42 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: t-bird at January 04, 2012 08:42 AM (l/xhO)
Goddamn you republican pussies, you never want to fight over anything because we might get "bad press". Boo fucking hoo. Your brilliant fucking strategy of winning the fight by not fighting has slid us to the shithole of socialism.
Fucking pansies.
Posted by: Fuck Off at January 04, 2012 08:42 AM (mJ950)
Posted by: blaster at January 04, 2012 08:42 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: alexthechick at January 04, 2012 08:42 AM (NY3kI)
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.
Presiding over a troubled but improving economy, Obama's must persuade a weary middle class that he is their champion, all while fending off fire from Republicans challengers and lawmakers.
As you might expect the whole damn article is nothing but propaganda for Barry
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 04, 2012 08:43 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose at January 04, 2012 08:43 AM (digkk)
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez! at January 04, 2012 12:37 PM (GBXon)
When I was 'asked' to leave Hot Air... it was because I had "Jeffersonian Fantasys"....
I've been thinking of changing my Sock... to Cassandra...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 08:44 AM (NtXW4)
What exactly would you suggest be done?
At the very minimum, both Boehner and McConnell need to hold a presser and put a very direct question to Pelosi and Reid.
"Do you support this action by the President. If so, then know that that is now the rule when the Republicans regain control. An answer other than no will be construed as a yes." We are going to regain control and if they're smart, they'll condemn it. But if they were smart, they wouldn't be Dems.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2012 08:44 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: The Declaration of Independence at January 04, 2012 08:44 AM (7BU4a)
Once again we see the genius of the framers in drafting of the constitution. They gave us some pretty simple rigid rules - but left some flexibility in them for the three branches to tug and pull in order to get more power from time to time. In some respects Obama is right to say that pro forma sessions should not interfere with his constitutional power to make recess appointments. Of course, he is only doing this because he will not use his constitutional power to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate. Certainly, the House could start impeachment proceedings if it wishes, but you are most certainly right it would invoke a backlash. This is not a decision that should be left to the courts, but one left to the voters through good old fashion politics. And there are political consequences to all bending of constitutional provisions. It is up to the GOP to make the sale that Obama is making an unconstitutional power grab not done in its history. They can do this, as they did with his appointment of czars.
If I was the Senate I would immediately deploy Marco Rubio to the Sunday talk shows to discuss this most recent power grab and to have him build the case that Obama has been creating his imperial presidency from day one and must be stopped.
Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 08:44 AM (gmeXX)
President says he wonÂ’t abide by spending bill he signed
When the president of the United States signs a bill into law, itÂ’s expected that he will abide by it. ThatÂ’s not the case with President Obama, who has a sudden interest in novel legalistic interpretations getting him off the hook from laws he doesnÂ’t like.
Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 08:44 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: rplat at January 04, 2012 08:44 AM (4vq8i)
Posted by: deepelemblues at January 04, 2012 08:45 AM (Jov5i)
One more thing: Unemployment is soon gonna break 9% again.
Yeah, it's gonna go back up in the first two quarters of 2012. The Republicans need to hone their message on two, just two, goddamm things:
1. Unemployment/job-killing Obama admin
2. Gas/energy costs
That's how you connect with the people. Not by talking about "freedom" and "taxes" in general terms. Get down to the nitty gritty and relate with people with issues that impact their daily grinds.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 08:45 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 12:41 PM (sqkOB)
Natural Gas rates are through the f'n roof...
and we're not importing that shit. We've got more of it thatn the rest of the world.
It's policy. The Obama nation refuses to look at their bottom line and hold the man-child king responsible for the increase in energy and all related expenses.
Don't get me started on individual insurance policy holders. I just sent my quarterly in yesterday. Up 300% since the Burnt Sienna Saviour passed his signature healthcare bill.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2012 08:46 AM (Czkzr)
Posted by: Earth Bound Misfit at January 04, 2012 08:46 AM (jiwQf)
Posted by: Socratease at January 04, 2012 08:46 AM (vaIln)
Posted by: The Tree of Liberty at January 04, 2012 12:45 PM (GTbGH)
It's the pretzels.
Posted by: Cosmo Kramer at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (Czkzr)
The U.S. Constitution - Barry, you should read it.
Those little perforations you see in it? They aren't really there.
Posted by: Advo at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (7vbG1)
Posted by: deepelemblues at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (Jov5i)
Posted by: Bud Norton at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (6cOMd)
Doesn't matter. Will they do anything about it? You know the answer.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (+lsX1)
And we still get the bad press anyway, don't we?
I'm seriously warming up to the idea of impeaching several of Barry's key flunkies.
Holder over F&F
Coudry over this fake "recess appointment"
etc
Posted by: 18-1 at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 12:41 PM (8y9MW)
If the Repubs do NOT fight this... if the Senate DEMOCRATS do not fight this... the Constitution is effectivly Gone... and Ben Franklin's admonition comes to pass...
"A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it".
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 08:47 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 04, 2012 08:48 AM (vuzx2)
But, yes, ultimately we need honest politicians in the other party to stand up and say no. The Democrats won't.
As much as they bitched about Nixon, they knew that Republicans were far less likely to blatantly violate the law. If we can convince them that our new guy will use these powers...well, they'll turn.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 04, 2012 08:49 AM (73tyQ)
Of course the real response is to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Why does the federal government need such a bureau? For all of Gingrich's faults, I liked him best when he simply stated that Congress should repeal SBOX, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, etc.
Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 08:49 AM (gmeXX)
Since most arguments for Romney include "with a conservative congress," I'm not seeing anything to change my mind. We don't have a conservative congress, we have a "less liberal than them" congress.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 08:49 AM (8y9MW)
This is very bad because now the bureau can issue regulations for which there is no appellate review. Its budget comes through the Fed, not Congress.
Dodd-Frank gives it power over anything remotely related to finance, including any law firm that might do any kind of work for a bank or similar financial company. It is a law unto itself until Dodd-Frank is repealed.
And Dodd-Frank had all sorts of "diversity" goals that any such finance-related business had to meet. This will be used as an end run around the Ricci case. DOJ has already been threatening police and fire departments with expensive discrimination lawsuits. The departments cave, and sign a confidential agreement that is not of puboic record.
Watch for similar AA blackmail through this agency, from which there is no appeal, until someone files a lawsuit, challenging the lack of due process.
Posted by: Rosley at January 04, 2012 08:49 AM (YOheL)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 04, 2012 08:51 AM (jucos)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 08:51 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Color Me Surprised at January 04, 2012 08:51 AM (Ugx1D)
There is a reason that Diogenes didn't carry his lamp into the Senate Democrat's Caucus.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 08:51 AM (Hx5uv)
Bullshit. Nat gas prices are near an all-time low, down almost 60% over the last two years.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2012 08:52 AM (+lsX1)
Here's another thing to wrap your heads around:
Nancy Pelosi might be Speaker again in 2013.
The Democrats need, what, only 25 seats to take the majority in the House?
Posted by: doomsayer at January 04, 2012 08:52 AM (sqkOB)
But this may be too much for Senate DEMOCRATS to swallow...
I doubt it. The "D" behind Obama's name ultimately will be more important to them than any shred of integrity, or even self-preservation, they might have deep in their ugly souls. They'll just scream about it if/when a Republican president tries it, and hope everyone forgets about this, and the MFM certainly won't remind people.
Posted by: Laura Castellano at January 04, 2012 08:52 AM (fuw6p)
Posted by: MFM at January 04, 2012 08:53 AM (vU9mR)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 04, 2012 08:54 AM (vuzx2)
The Democrats need, what, only 25 seats to take the majority in the House?
Not gonna happen.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2012 08:54 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: maddogg at January 04, 2012 08:55 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 04, 2012 08:55 AM (X+wG+)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 08:55 AM (Qjh0I)
Why am I so negative?
Because I'm sitting here thinking about what the Republicans (and Boner) are doing to stay in power. The answer is nothing. They ain't doing shit.
Not only that, but the Republicans have sucked so bad that they just might have taken the wind out of the sails of the Tea Party movement. In other words, the motivation to get out and vote is diminishing daily because of these do-nothings in Washington.
Posted by: doomsayer at January 04, 2012 08:55 AM (sqkOB)
589 dollars for 150 gallons of heating oil today here in NC.
Holy shit. And that wouldn't last a week in Boston right now. It's 15 degrees.
Posted by: doomsayer at January 04, 2012 08:56 AM (sqkOB)
On a mostly serious aspect, and in my very non-lawyerly very layman reading of the quoted text of the constitution...
Did the vacancy occur during the Recess of the Senate? If not, then the President can't grant a commission to fill the vacancy. Note: it doesn't say if there was a vacancy and then the senate recesses that the President can grant the commission. (That intent could be argued though.)
Even if the commission is granted, then, it states that the commission expires at the End of the next Session. The Senate could theoretically open, immediately close, and immediately open another Session causing the Commission to expire and have an open session where recess granting of Commissions could not occur.
Posted by: Dilligas at January 04, 2012 08:56 AM (HhjUQ)
Shouldn't the title for this story be "Obama Administration Proudly Announces They Are Violating The Constitution AGAIN!"
I seem to recall some unauthorized military action last year...
Posted by: balticdave at January 04, 2012 08:57 AM (y+R/Z)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 04, 2012 12:48 PM (vuzx2)
I'm not a Romney supporter, but I'd vote for his stool sample over Barry
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 04, 2012 08:57 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 12:41
The NYT has an obligatory piece today on how any critisicm of Zero is racist based and how our country is still a hotbed of racist, i.e. Republicans/Tea Party. As usual, the majority of commenters agree with this viewpoint with only a few calling bullshit.
The article even names Newt, Romney, Santorum's son, etc. as being racist. The Repubs better stand up and call bullshit on all of this or we are totally screwed.
Posted by: Cheri at January 04, 2012 08:57 AM (G+Wff)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 08:58 AM (Hx5uv)
I disagree. Every time BO pulls something like this, he becomes a little less electable. The ones who are without enthusiasm are the more moderate Dems and independents who voted for BO.
If Romney wins the nom, and I think he will, I predict that getting it will ultimately prove to be by far the harder task compared to winning the general. I know many of you don't care for him, but he wouldn't pull this kind of a stunt.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2012 08:58 AM (ICv9N)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2012 12:52 PM (+lsX1)
Explain the phenomena of the increase in prices to the consumer. Namely, me...
Same usage. Rates doubled.
But I am sure that Government Policy has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2012 08:58 AM (q/q9Y)
If I was the Senate I would immediately deploy Marco Rubio to the Sunday talk shows to discuss this most recent power grab and to have him build the case that Obama has been creating his imperial presidency from day one and must be stopped."""
THIS!
Posted by: Berserker at January 04, 2012 08:58 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: doomsayer at January 04, 2012 08:58 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: anotherformoftransparency at January 04, 2012 08:59 AM (/MuFf)
Yeah, I remember MA well. This 150 gallons will probably last until Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 08:59 AM (Qjh0I)
Doesn't matter. Will they do anything about it? You know the answer.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2012 12:47 PM (+lsX1)
I really don't know...
Remember, ALL Politicians have Hubris, and this is taking THEIR Power from them. The Senate is made up of Carreerists... they are in for the long haul, and understand that Obama will be gone one day....
This may be over the line for the more Moderate Senate Dems... especialy as they were not consulted about this first, but hit with this while out of town...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 08:59 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 04, 2012 08:59 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:00 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: ChrisB at January 04, 2012 09:00 AM (3GtyG)
Posted by: nickless at January 04, 2012 09:00 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: not really Benjamin Franklin at January 04, 2012 09:01 AM (AZGON)
Remember, Democrats are the party of Loyalty oaths. As much as they want personal power, they're secure enough in their own positions that they're willing to surrender personal power if it brings their much-vaunted Marxist Utopia closer.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:01 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:01 AM (i6RpT)
I worry when things are moving in a particular direction. There is zero evidence that the country is pining for Pelosi, part 2. For that matter, given all the Dem retirements (see Barney Frank), there chances are remote. What do you have?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2012 09:01 AM (YXmuI)
yeah, the "experts" are blaming Iran for the jump in prices
actually, they're blaming the speculators for using Iran to push the cost up
Posted by: doomsayer at January 04, 2012 09:01 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: t-bird at January 04, 2012 09:02 AM (l/xhO)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:02 AM (zLeKL)
You guys still going to sit out if Romney wins the nomination?
Seriously, we can't even have a lovely loathe on SCOAMF thread without that being hauled into it?
Fine. It's on. Longbows, bitches. Discuss.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 04, 2012 09:03 AM (VtjlW)
You guys still going to sit out if Romney wins the nomination?
So, Mitt's going lead the Republican charge on this one, is he?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 09:05 AM (3wBRE)
Fine. It's on. Longbows, bitches. Discuss.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 04, 2012 01:03 PM (VtjlW)
Well... I found out the hard way that Crossbows are pretty Effective...
Posted by: King Richard at January 04, 2012 09:05 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 09:06 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:06 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 09:07 AM (EjNp5)
'Course not. This is The New AoSHQ, more popularly known as "RedState".
Besides, everyone knows Perry's gonna take this thing.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:08 AM (yBtkG)
Nancy Pelosi might be Speaker again in 2013. The Democrats need, what, only 25 seats to take the majority in the House?
I agree with pep. It is a long-shot at best. Compare the number of Democratic retirements to Republican retirements. The Democrats are not retiring because they got a better offer.
Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 09:08 AM (d6QMz)
All the more reason to elect ABO.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 04, 2012 09:08 AM (epBek)
Vote for Ron Paul then.
I'd vote Paul over Obama. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 09:08 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Rondinellamamma at January 04, 2012 09:08 AM (XgXT2)
Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 09:09 AM (SAMxH)
There is also the problem that skipping the fight grants Obama the "power" to appoint to NLRB as well. Cordry may not be worth it, but the NLRB might be - skipping Cordry could be deemed a "waiver" ? ?
Posted by: Looks Like We're in for Nasty Weather at January 04, 2012 09:09 AM (tAwhy)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:10 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:10 AM (i6RpT)
3 words, dickhead. Balance of Powers. You are NOT above the Constitution. Go back to Kenya and become King and do what you want, asshole.
Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2012 09:10 AM (UK9cE)
RCP average has Democrats +1.6 on the generic Congressional ballot.
Not exactly a confidence builder, especially since under Obama everything has gotten worse.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 09:11 AM (sqkOB)
But if they had one called "The Crossbow" it would be more deadly at short to medium range, and easier to learn to use.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:11 AM (8y9MW)
Only with this particular inept group of Republicans can they be more unpopular than a shitty president with a shitty economy.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 09:12 AM (sqkOB)
Or, maybe, instead, our side could engage in the fight out of principle and along the way educate the American people about the rule of law.
Let Obama explain to the American people how he needs to use a recess appointment to get a hack, defeated Democratic politician appointed to yet another meddlesome burecratic perch when it is HIS own party that controls the Senate.
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/hyde-imp.htm
Posted by: I. Buttocks at January 04, 2012 09:12 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 01:10 PM (zLeKL)
Next up? Being called a TRAITOR, which is a Crime punishable by DEATH...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 09:13 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:13 AM (i6RpT)
Ah, but didn't you know? If you never fight for your principles, you can never lose. And if you don't lose, then you've won! It's the new Conservatism.
Or something.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:13 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Berserker at January 04, 2012 09:14 AM (FMbng)
Which media do you intend to use?
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2012 09:14 AM (kWFP3)
It sure would be nice if it weren't always those of us who stand on principle who were asked to "unite the party." Why can't Willard and crew "unite the party" by admitting his statist mistakes?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:15 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:15 AM (i6RpT)
i say this because i did not see a problem with Clinton until the impeachment began, and although most my cohorts in arms (dems) saw it as only having sex which seems to be a presidents right to. I came to understand the lie issue.
Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 09:15 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 at January 04, 2012 09:15 AM (FUYSU)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:16 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:17 AM (i6RpT)
I have to say how funny it is that just one thread below some of you are saying good riddance to Michelle Bachmann.
Yeah, she's not a great presidential candidate. But we cannot afford to lose her in the House. We can't afford to lose a single conservative voice in either Washington or on the media.
Get that through your heads.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (sqkOB)
Do you think he gives a shit? He's been doing shit for four years, and there's nothing to stop him except SCOTUS reviewing portions of laws (not executive orders, not signing statements, not federal agency directives) literally years after he signs them.
No one's going to do anything; even if Congress felt like doing something they will be ignored; and worse, the majority of Americans don't give a shit about tyranny as long as they've got something to eat and something to watch on TV.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (/kI1Q)
Shotguns.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2012 01:11 PM (5H6zj)
Ahem.
Posted by: Barrett Model 82A1 .50BMG at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (v+QvA)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 01:16 PM (zLeKL)
--
Yeah, what's your point
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:17 PM (i6RpT)
--
The point is that calls for unity that include "it's time" are premature. That happens at the convention.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Harry Reid at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (lXi+d)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 01:06 PM (Hx5uv)
The difference this time?
GM has Me.
Posted by: Barack H Obama at January 04, 2012 09:18 AM (q/q9Y)
Why can't Willard and crew "unite the party" by admitting his statist mistakes?
You really need to bring enough of whatever it is that you're drinking to share with the class.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 04, 2012 09:19 AM (VtjlW)
No, see, you're thinking rationally. We can't have that here at RedAoStateHQ.
The true endgame here is to nominate the most awesomely awesomest awesome conservative evah, even if he's a sweater-wearing putz from Pennsylvania who lost his last election by 20 points and whose top two priorities are 1.) Gays and 2.) Gays (not necessarily in that order). If we can't have that, then our top priority is to vote and campaign for Obama, as our buddy Joffen here has pledged to do on more than one occasion. That's victory.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:19 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: kp at January 04, 2012 09:20 AM (5nkgn)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:20 AM (zLeKL)
Shuddup, Kardashian Idol is on.
Posted by: the American people at January 04, 2012 09:20 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:20 AM (i6RpT)
I only wish I were drinking... It might make the pain go away- or at least make me not care about it. And I didn't say that Mittens and his kittens would do that, just that it would be nice if they would.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:20 AM (8y9MW)
BO is taking a page from the playbook of that other great Progressive, Teddy Roosevelt.
When faced with a question as to how he could create a national wildlife refuge, he asked , "is there anything in the constitution that says I can't do it?"
He also declared, "I think [the presidency] should be a very powerful office, and I think the President should be a very strong man who uses without hesitation every power the position yields." At another point he said, "I believe in a strong executive. I believe in power."
Gotta love that progressive spirit!
Posted by: imp at January 04, 2012 09:21 AM (UaxA0)
i guess we only have the option to vote him out g-d willing.
Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 09:22 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:20 PM (i6RpT)
----
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:13 PM (i6RpT)
----
You know, if you'd read your own posts before hitting the Post button, you'd be more convincing.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2012 09:22 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:22 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:15 PM (8y9MW)
It sure would be nice if I had employees who weren't so busy Standing On Principle that they could get off the Internet for a few minutes every day to get some work done. I'm paying some guys pretty damn well to post on AoSHQ and monitor their own blog stats. But I guess we all have to make compromises for conservatives as awesome and principled as Dedicated Tenthers.
Posted by: AllenG's Boss (Dedicated Bottom-Liner) at January 04, 2012 09:23 AM (yBtkG)
-----
That goes both ways.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2012 09:23 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:23 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Pharoh Obama at January 04, 2012 09:24 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:24 AM (zLeKL)
I won.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:24 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:24 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Earth Bound Misfit at January 04, 2012 09:25 AM (jiwQf)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:25 AM (r2PLg)
I just thought it might be nice to remind all you losers who thought it didn't matter that the GOP did not take back the Senate in 2010, that THIS is why it mattered. A Republican Senate would have repealed this Dodd Frank monstrosity, and especially this new unaccountable bureaucracy that sprang from the fevered mind of Elizabeth Warren, and forced Obama to veto it. The Senate Banking Committee would not have even held a hearing on Cordray or any other appointee.
But yay, good thing we got rid of that RINO bastard Mike Castle!!!1!1!!1!!!!
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 09:25 AM (NYnoe)
Oh, no no no; I'm for Perry. The man is awesome and clearly the best-qualified to beat Obama and serve as president. Which is why I urge as many South Carolinians as possible to throw him their support.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:25 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (zLeKL)
"George W. Bush, Voldemort Of American Politics, Rules From The Shadows"
Come to think off it, when was the last time you heard the name of he who must not be named?
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (Hx5uv)
And I didn't say that Mittens and his kittens would do that, just that it would be nice if they would.
Sorry, sorry didn't mean to imply that you did, I was trying to make with the funny.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (VtjlW)
The point is that we're the only ones being called on to "unite" the party. At no point has anyone said to Mittens or his supporters, "Hey, you might want to throw a bone to the conservatives, in the name of unity."
The calls for "unity" in fact, are calls for surrender, not for coalition.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (r2PLg)
----
And yet I still paid better attention to what you wrote than you did.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:26 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Lauren at January 04, 2012 09:27 AM (29T98)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:27 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:27 AM (r2PLg)
Barf. I need some trigger time and the range is usually uncrowded this time of the week.
Argue nice and don't break too much, okay?
Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 09:27 AM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Alex at January 04, 2012 09:28 AM (+1TUS)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:28 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:28 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Obama the Magnificient at January 04, 2012 09:28 AM (Hx5uv)
But yay, good thing we got rid of that RINO bastard Mike Castle!!!1!1!!1!!!!
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 01:25 PM (NYnoe)
In lining up for 2012, itÂ’s much better we didnÂ’t win the Senate with guys like Mike Castle. Strategically, it worked in our favor.
Posted by: jwest at January 04, 2012 09:28 AM (8moZm)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:29 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:24 PM (8y9MW)
I sure hope so; I'm paying you good money to "win".
I just wish you'd mentioned on your resume that the "G" stood for "Goldbrick".
Posted by: AllenG's Boss (Dedicated Bottom-Liner) at January 04, 2012 09:29 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:29 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at January 04, 2012 09:29 AM (UU0OF)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 09:29 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:30 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:30 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Wall_E at January 04, 2012 09:31 AM (48wze)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:31 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:31 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:15 PM (i6RpT)
Never left... and truthfully what a bunch of KeyBoard Commando's think, or say, about my Patriotism and Honor means little...
When you've been shot at in the name of your Country... a bunch of blowhards accusing you of a CRIME which has the DEATH PENALTY? For Excercising your RIGHT? I know who the REAL Americans are...
But I am only here when work allows... some of us still have jobs...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 09:31 AM (NtXW4)
Not exactly a confidence builder, especially since under Obama everything has gotten worse.
Mixed data which contradicts the findings of other polls. You see periods of times in which Republicans were winning the messaging war in other polls but the RCP average shows them losing during those same periods. How does that work?
Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 09:31 AM (d6QMz)
you're an embarrassment to the Aries Guild...
you're suppose to get the art of diplomacy or somethin'....
And yet, my guy is going to win.
All the same, I can't boost Perry enough in South Carolina. Come on, voters. Give him a look....
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:32 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: Ma Deuce at January 04, 2012 09:32 AM (bjRNS)
Posted by: Alex at January 04, 2012 01:28 PM (+1TUS)
+100
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2012 09:32 AM (kWFP3)
One thing the House should do now is call this MFer Cordray up for hearings every. single. week. until the election. Tie him down with a lot of useless inquiries and subpoenas, keep him from going out campaigning for Obama. He wanted this job so fucking bad, let him have all the Congressional oversight and proctological exams that go with it.
This guy is a trial lawyer's wet dream, and this agency is already set up to find "violations" wherever and whenever the agency decides it is convenient to.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 09:32 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 09:32 AM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:32 AM (zLeKL)
Because RCP assumes all polls are equally valid, and just averages all of their results, more or less.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:33 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:33 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:33 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:33 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:33 AM (i6RpT)
Re Natural Gas prices; dateline 12/30/2011:
(Reuters) - A steep drop in natural gas prices is squeezing the profits of producers such as Southwestern Gas Corp , EXCO Resources and QuickSilver Resources, which may need to shut wells, raise cash, cut staff or seek merger partners in the coming year.
Spot natural gas futures dipped below $3.00 per million British Thermal units on Friday, the lowest level in more than two years, as a glut of gas from shale fields across the United States pushed inventory levels to historic highs.
Market forecasters expect prices to remain weak in 2012, after falling nearly 40 percent since June -- a boon to major users of the fuel, such as chemicals and industrial companies.
My electricity plan is variably priced based on the monthly futures closing price for natural gas, plus a seasonal "multiplier" added by the electric rep company. My Texas electric rates have been going down.
Northeasterners who have repeatedly, collectively rejected natural gas in favor of heating oil since the 1960's get no sympathy from me. Life is hard. ...
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 04, 2012 09:34 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:35 AM (yAor6)
It's just an average. It's not like I'm cherry picking the polls that support my doomsayerism.
If the average shows the Republicans up a few months from now I'll be pleased. But right now that particular indicator shows Team Pelosi-Reid winning.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 09:35 AM (sqkOB)
In lining up for 2012, itÂ’s much better we didnÂ’t win the Senate with guys like Mike Castle. Strategically, it worked in our favor.
Posted by: jwest at January 04, 2012 01:28 PM (8moZm)
Huh? Having Harry Reid as Majority Leader, not passing a budget for three years, setting up the GOP as the foil for a failed President to run against? This has worked out for us?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 09:35 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:35 AM (zLeKL)
Bubba: You want to be the husband or the wife in this cell?
SOB: I'll be the Husband
Bubba: Good get over here and suck your wife's......
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 04, 2012 09:35 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at January 04, 2012 09:36 AM (qwK3S)
Ah, I miss buying my own electricity. Stupid fellow Californians.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 04, 2012 09:36 AM (bjRNS)
No shit. Fuck that guy.
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 04, 2012 09:36 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 04, 2012 09:36 AM (SB0V2)
He said he wouldn't detain citizens - just that he has the power. Thankfully we have his word. It means so very much.
And hi. I've purposefully avoided this place over the last 24 hours. Looks like I made the right call.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 04, 2012 09:37 AM (Angta)
If the average shows the Republicans up a few months from now I'll be pleased. But right now that particular indicator shows Team Pelosi-Reid winning.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2012 01:35 PM (sqkOB)
+1 RCP helped me get 7/7 in Iowa though I didnt agree w/ them on #2 and #3
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:37 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 04, 2012 01:36 PM (yBtkG)
and war goes back to being a dickwad
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:37 AM (yAor6)
This whole debacle is proof that we have a serious cultural deficiency. Americans should not be so willing to stand for constant, shameless lawbreaking. It's not like this is the first time, nor anything unusual. This guy is a little Stalin.
This is proof that the cancer of Leftist thought has contaminated the nation too thoroughly. Sadly, the political realm is usually the only place we fight hard against it. By the time you're talking policy, it's probably too late. We are losing the culture war, by tolerating leftist BS in so many areas of life. Especially toxic is the leftist take over of the educational system - they do their work too well. Not the work of teaching knowledge, but the work of indoctrination. Once we had a culture strong enough to be able to endure the curse of universal suffrage. Now, that's no longer the case.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 04, 2012 09:37 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:37 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 01:33 PM (loM0R)
What you don't get is that THIS was always Obama's plan.
He does not like the idea that we are a Repbulic, and wants pure Democracy, so he can buy off the Mob....
The Founders saw this... and wrote the Consituttion to prevent pure Democracy, which is why it now must go.
He SPOKE pre election about the Limitations of the Constitution... and how it was a negative document... and being a serial liar, had no problem Swearing to uphold a document he wanted to destroy... as I believe he is Agnostic at best, and does not fear Divine Justice.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 09:38 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 09:38 AM (8y9MW)
Well, you sure invest a lot of..... emotion into The Cause for a guy who recognizes blog posts have jack-all to do with outcomes.
Most people have grown out of that at age 30, but hey, YMMV.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:38 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:39 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Lizabth at January 04, 2012 09:39 AM (JZBti)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:40 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: brak at January 04, 2012 09:41 AM (nIoiW)
Will the teachers use this as a teachable moment?
Posted by: MayBee at January 04, 2012 09:41 AM (PLixr)
My Irony Meter just exploded.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2012 09:41 AM (FUYSU)
and war goes back to being a dickwad
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 01:37 PM (yAor6)
Hey, at least I can pick a candidate and stick with him.
Not everyone can do that, y'know. Not namin' any names, but some people bounce around from Bachmann to Perry to Romney to Newt back to Perry to probably Santorum to who knows who. Sarah Palin™ may even have been in the mix somewhere.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:41 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: Independent moderate voter aka the the heart and soul of this country at January 04, 2012 09:42 AM (0K5Vv)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:42 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:38 PM (8y9MW)
heh
Well, you sure invest a lot of..... emotion into The Cause for a guy who recognizes blog posts have jack-all to do with outcomes.
Most people have grown out of that at age 30, but hey, YMMV.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 01:38 PM (yBtkG)
and you think you help w/ the base problem Romney has by being a dick to people? I have been so fair to Romney at times that i've been called an idiot and a RINO on this blog and other places. I even admitted that Mitt was my guy if Perry and Newt drop out by FL, but I dont hide behind socks or insult the inteligence of those who disagree with me. This is the biggest problem Ive seen with some, not all, Romneybots. They've created a "fuck you" attitude around them that ain't gonna help when it comes time for the party to unite. But keep on being a dick about things and see where that gets you if (and most likely) when Romney gets the nod and folks are faced with uniting around a guy backed by folks who treated them with such disdain as you Romneybots did.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:43 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 04, 2012 09:43 AM (mFxQX)
True dat.
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 09:43 AM (EjNp5)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 04, 2012 09:43 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: Independent moderate voter aka the the heart and soul of this country at January 04, 2012 01:42 PM (0K5Vv)
Sadly, this.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 04, 2012 09:43 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:44 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 04, 2012 09:44 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: Truman North at January 04, 2012 09:44 AM (I2LwF)
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 01:35 PM (NYnoe)
Glad to share.
If we held both the House and Senate right now, Obama would have an excuse as to why the economy sucks so much. As it stands now, all indications (right track/wrong track, consumer confidence, deserves reelection, job approval, etc.) show that we are headed into a landslide election that will have coattails down the dog catcher level.
On top of that, the most accurate polling is making senior democrats drop out of races they would have easily won 4 years ago. You’ll see more decide to “spend more time with their families” in the next few month. I believe its bad enough that Obama will not be the eventual candidate for the dems.
Posted by: jwest at January 04, 2012 09:45 AM (8moZm)
Hey, at least I can pick a candidate and stick with him.
Not everyone can do that, y'know. Not namin' any names, but some people bounce around from Bachmann to Perry to Romney to Newt back to Perry to probably Santorum to who knows who. Sarah Palin™ may even have been in the mix somewhere.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 01:41 PM (yBtkG)
yeah dude because sticking to 1 guy/gal and not looking to see how they handle themselves on the campaign trail, looking at their record, or trying to give everyone a chance at your vote because you dont wanna get tied down to one fanbase and take time making a decision is so horrible./sarc
fuck you War, I used to enjoy your posts but your Romney hackery has gone far enough, fuck off
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:45 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Natasha at January 04, 2012 09:45 AM (jU5uf)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:45 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:46 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Truman North at January 04, 2012 09:46 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:46 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 01:43 PM (yAor6)
Hold that thought, I need to borrow Waterhouse's Irony Meter.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:46 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 04, 2012 01:44 PM (SB0V2)
Come to Texas we would welcome you with open arms, but be sure to bring your arms.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 04, 2012 09:47 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: giftogab at January 04, 2012 09:47 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 09:47 AM (EjNp5)
> Because RCP assumes all polls are equally valid, and just averages all of their results, more or less.
That was a rhetorical question.
Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 09:48 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:48 AM (zLeKL)
Let's win the Senate as well as the WH and save the House this November. Then work on our perfect guy (Rubio) to win in 2016.
Take America back, y'all (or as Paula Dean says, yaw----this is O/T but I am born and bred a Southern redneck for centuries and have nevah heard "y'all" pronounced like some kind of donkey bray).
[Did Ace succumb to the tar intestinal distress?]
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 04, 2012 09:48 AM (baL2B)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:48 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:49 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:46 PM (i6RpT)
Not only that, who thinks this is something ANYONE would see as a plus? Even the people who voted for McVain wanted somebody else - they just had no choice. A vote for McCain was a vote for not-Obama. McCain is damaged goods - a loser. One should flee his endorsement, not embrace it.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 04, 2012 09:49 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: Natasha at January 04, 2012 09:49 AM (jU5uf)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at January 04, 2012 09:49 AM (UU0OF)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2012 09:49 AM (r2PLg)
Yeah, I've noticed you getting pissy lately because I wasn't supporting whichever candidate you'd happened to latch onto that week. Didn't really know where most of it was coming from, since we'd seemed to get on alright in the past, but hey, I've gotten used to this sort of thing around here.
So, fuck you, too, I guess. Is that the proper response?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:50 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:50 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:49 PM (i6RpT)
yeah its a horrible move in my opinion, he needs to go all out in SC and if he loses there, it's time to face the music
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:50 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:51 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 09:51 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Truman North at January 04, 2012 01:46 PM (I2LwF)
Because we're on to New Hampshire now, and McCain is sort of "Mister New Hampshire." Remember he trounced GWB there in 2000, and he beat Romney there in 2008. Republicans there seem to really love the guy. It's also a kind of bury-the-hatchet moment for Romney. McCain never buried the hatchet with GWB. Ever.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 09:51 AM (NYnoe)
Ace probably ODed on Valu-Rite when it looked like Perry was dropping out.
Posted by: Ian S. at January 04, 2012 09:51 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 04, 2012 09:52 AM (r4wIV)
You guys still gonna sit out if Romney wins the nomination?
WTF is that supposed to mean? "Sure, the GOP is a bunch of spinless assholes now, but wait till Mitt gets the nomination, then you'll see some conservative mojo!"
Please. Either that crying assmunch Boehner stands up right now and tells the SCOAMF to back the fuck off, or he never will. Don't give me this fucking "see what will happen if you don't vote for Mitt?" It's happening right now, and where's Mittens? Slapping his son down for joking that Dad will release his tax returns when Ofuckstick releases his grades.
Yeah, a real warrior, that Willard.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Clitoris at January 04, 2012 09:52 AM (zF6Iw)
No. He's doing it just to break things.
Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 09:53 AM (X3lox)
So, fuck you, too, I guess. Is that the proper response?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 01:50 PM (yBtkG)
actually fucker Ive been pissed off with your constant insults towards commenters and candidates via socking, its incredible to me that you Romneybots are such dickwads that in a couple hours ive gone from debating AllenG on why Mitt>Santorum and now I gotta deal with the Romney fans' trolling the blog once again
it's done, I can just try and ignore you as much as Ive decided to w/ Vic and other commenters. Im not gonna associate with pricks.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 09:53 AM (yAor6)
I'm sure you do.
On the other hand, you keep telling people you'll vote for Obama here, so I can't imagine what you must be saying at TPM.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:53 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:49 PM (i6RpT)
yeah its a horrible move in my opinion, he needs to go all out in SC and if he loses there, it's time to face the music
It's smart, Perry's strongest in the South so leaving the race before then would have been the bad move, stay in and see how he does once everything moves out of the Northeast.
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 09:54 AM (EjNp5)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 04, 2012 01:53 PM (yAor6)
Shit, I forgot I was supposed to preface my earlier comment with "Fucker". Sorry. I'll try to do better.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 09:55 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:56 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:56 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 01:47 PM (EjNp5)
I've been for Perry off and on since he announced. I can't figure why he didn't do better in Iowa, that's his base.
I think Perry will drop out, he spent a fortune in Iowa and lost badly. I don't see his ability to raise money staying with him after that. Even though Iowa is a sham way of picking a candidate.
Santorum is a big government guy, from voting for the medicare perscription drug bill, no child left behind to deciding which industries will be paying higher taxes. All of that will come out soon and he will go by the wayside.
Posted by: robtr at January 04, 2012 09:56 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 01:49 PM (i6RpT)
yeah its a horrible move in my opinion, he needs to go all out in SC and if he loses there, it's time to face the music
It's smart, Perry's strongest in the South so leaving the race before then would have been the bad move, stay in and see how he does once everything moves out of the Northeast.
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 01:54 PM (EjNp5)
Perry never jumped out. Endeavor to persevere and all like that.
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 04, 2012 09:57 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:58 AM (loM0R)
Yes indeed, you comedrunk little emo shit. Of courser, some of us actually understand that you can decline to support Ron Paul without actively voting for the jug-eared fuck, but I get that you're still new here from Canada and this is only your first or second American election so maybe you just need a little more time to figure it out.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 04, 2012 10:00 AM (yBtkG)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 10:02 AM (hiMsy)
I've had enough. This past year it seems i've been frozen in time. Unchanging economic misery and humiliation. I cannot take this communist piece of shit laughing at everyone while he knowingly shreds the constitution. This man is beneath contempt.
I'm ashamed I have these thoughts for our President. I never thought our President would actually hate his own country, but he does. He's a tyrant. He must be impeached, or some major Machiavellian political maneuvers need to take place to make him overplay his hand. With the media on his side, with knee pads on, I'm not sure how this will be done.
Maybe people in the media need to actually be victimized by his policies. I thought the elites in the media would change when their kids were unemployed for long periods of time, but then I realized that media people have nepotism for breakfast, along with sperm.
So, I dunno. For us, this IS the hill to die on. I, along with everyone else who's been in 'economic time-freeze' since his election, need something to energize us again. I swear this idiot has sucked the life out of people like i've never seen. people are like fucking zombies in despair
Posted by: The mall cop movie dude at January 04, 2012 10:02 AM (bcmD0)
I never really thought he'd do good in Iowa, for all the talk about Iowa being a white, rural swing state they're more left of center than right and have gone dem in every election in recent memory. The R winners in Iowa are usually a social conservative or a moderate conservative and Perry doesn't really fit neatly into either of those camps.
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 10:04 AM (EjNp5)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 10:07 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 10:08 AM (EjNp5)
Posted by: DavidW at January 04, 2012 10:15 AM (hAiC2)
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at January 04, 2012 10:19 AM (na8r5)
Posted by: Teh President Barack Obama at January 04, 2012 10:19 AM (UAUr6)
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at January 04, 2012 10:22 AM (na8r5)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 10:31 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 04, 2012 10:34 AM (vahvH)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (vahvH)
Destruction is so simple - especially when the defenders are scared to defend. This has been Barky's M.O. (over and over and over and over) since he first slimed into office.
There is no law left in America. There just isn't. And everyone knows it. It's pathetic and will certainly be recorded as such in future history books.
Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 10:45 AM (X3lox)
Which media do you intend to use?
For starters, we could try the ones that got Clinton impeached and Dan Rather fired.
Posted by: I. Buttocks at January 04, 2012 10:48 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: Justin Snapp at January 04, 2012 10:51 AM (UoMqH)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:03 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: Tjexcite at January 04, 2012 11:05 AM (sk1Ym)
So sorry to bother the practical politics types, but does anybody see a separation of powers issue with this? With the President assuming for himself the authority to decide when the Senate has sufficiently recessed?
If Obama, or any President, can simply declare the Senate to be in recess, what can he not do with respect to the Senate and the House?
Give Obama a pass on that little power infringement and grab and your little snide jokes about him being a SCFOAMF will be on you. Bamster is one audacious fellow who is not failing at anything.
Posted by: Zombie Robert Byrd at January 04, 2012 11:06 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: Jimmah at January 04, 2012 11:14 AM (TMeYE)
Why aren't you all bitching about the Senate not allowing a President to nominate to fill a position? Two wrongs don't make a right, but the first wrong is still wrong as well.
What if a Democrat Senate refused to allow a Republican President to fill positions?
Thou dost protest too much
Posted by: Bullshit at January 04, 2012 11:14 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:16 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: Thatcher the milk snatcher at January 04, 2012 11:16 AM (rZZA3)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:17 AM (loM0R)
Obama is using the regulatory power and EOs to rule by fiat. This is dictatorship.
Anyone think this would get better in a second term?
Posted by: Adjoran at January 04, 2012 11:18 AM (VfmLu)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:19 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:20 AM (loM0R)
This tribal US vs THEM bullshit is nonsense. Can't you take a step back from your political allegiances to see how this is absurd?
If Republican's block Presidential appointments - how tricky and cute
If Democrats block Presidential appointments - ABUSE OF POWER!
All this gnashing of teeth over the coming evil may be cathartic for you all, but give me a break.
Posted by: Bullshit at January 04, 2012 11:23 AM (N4deu)
Why aren't you all bitching about the Senate not allowing a President to nominate to fill a position? Two wrongs don't make a right, but the first wrong is still wrong as well.
What if a Democrat Senate refused to allow a Republican President to fill positions?
Actually, Republicans used to go by the idea that a Prez got his nominations, but Dems started blocking the noms of R's so now R's block the noms of D's. D's are still going to block the noms of R's whether R's do the same or not, no reason to give D's what they want while D's continue to block.
Posted by: booger at January 04, 2012 11:26 AM (EjNp5)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:27 AM (loM0R)
And how are the R's not striking at my rights?
By preventing the President from exercising his constitutional rights, isn't that just as bad?
Posted by: Bullshit at January 04, 2012 11:31 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:31 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 04, 2012 11:33 AM (ybkwK)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 11:33 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:34 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 11:35 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:36 AM (loM0R)
It's the end of the WWWWOOOORRRLLLLDDD!!!!!!
OBAMA is gonna rape and pillage!
MANDATED PORTRAITS OF HIM IN OUR HOMES!!!
What a bunch of pricks
Posted by: Bullshit at January 04, 2012 11:38 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:40 AM (loM0R)
House Republicans may not have confirmation powers, but thatÂ’s not stopping them from putting up a fight against President Barack ObamaÂ’s appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said Wednesday that he has asked Cordray to appear before his House subcommittee on Jan. 24 so lawmakers can question him on what McHenry called his “unparalleled powers” as the CFPB’s leader.
“President Obama’s appointment of you as director of the agency – in apparent contravention of constitutional requirements for a recess appointment – now gives you the enormous authority to invalidate any consumer financial product in the United States,” McHenry wrote in a letter to Cordray. “In addition, your unprecedented recess appointment provides the CFPB with new powers to broadly regulate consumer financial products and services with minimal oversight. As you begin your tenure as the director of the CFPB, the subcommittee is deeply interested in how you will implement and enforce the unparalleled powers of your new office.”
McHenry requested an answer from Cordray by Friday. If he says no, he could be subpoenaed. A spokeswoman for the CFPB declined comment.
McHenry chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs.
He famously sparred with Elizabeth Warren – the original architect of the CFPB who is now running for the Senate – during a May subcommittee hearing, accusing her of misleading Congress and lying about how long she would be available to testify before lawmakers. The full Republican-led House voted in July to strip the agency of a single director and put in its place a five-member oversight panel. That legislation also would make it easier to overturn regulations imposed by the CFPB.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 11:46 AM (qE3AR)
Didn't somebody around here get upset because another commenter likened Obama to Pol Pot?
We're gettimg closer.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 04, 2012 11:47 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 11:47 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 11:48 AM (loM0R)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 11:48 AM (bxiXv)
So what if the Senate shuts itself down? Zero will just recess appoint to his heart's content. And probably declare that these appointments are permanent, as well.
Does that seem so outlandish?
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 04, 2012 11:49 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Bullshit at January 04, 2012 11:52 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: Bruce at January 04, 2012 12:00 PM (iqUtl)
So, working day's pretty much over for the East Coast. Haven't seen much of anything from Mitt about this. Narry a tweet, let alone the barn burner of a speech denouncing Obama's autocratic ways some might expect of the front-runner.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 12:02 PM (3wBRE)
T p....s have been viloating the constitution on the sly since Obama took office and now they do so blatently. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.
If you do nothing what next?
Posted by: davod at January 04, 2012 12:05 PM (C5U9L)
Posted by: Ken F at January 04, 2012 12:21 PM (qzn/2)
Posted by: Bullshit at January 04, 2012 03:52 PM (N4deu)
Nice try. The House passed a bill with bipartisan support to make the CFPB more accountable to Congress and provide judicial review of its actions. That is hardly trying to nullify the legislation. This is effectively a rogue agency that has been insulated from any accountability to anyone who is elected by the people, or even to the courts. Obama refused to even talk to Congress about any of these changes to make the agency accountable, even after the bill passed the House. Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on the House bill, even though 40 Republicans signed a letter supporting it and asking for negiotiations with the White House on it. So Senators felt they had little recourse but to block the appointment of the Director.
Not only that, but the law as it exists clearly requires the appointment and confirmation by the Senate of a Director before the new powers given to the agency can be exercised. The law said nothing about a recess appointment. Just because Dodd and Frank did not envision an elecotral massacre in 2010 does not mean Obama can ignore the plain letter of the law.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 12:26 PM (NYnoe)
Re: 367 - that comment is utterly specious and displays a blatant misunderstanding of the way our government is supposed to work (pre-King Putt, that is). Congress has the ability to pass laws that void other laws. What SCOAMF is doing actually goes beyond a power grab - he's way past that and well into "screw you - if I feel like doing it, I'm doing it" all couched in fluffy bunny sound bites about how he's taking whatever extra- or unconstitutional act of the day for (pick one) the unemployed or the middle class or the economy or the children or the environment.
Posted by: Natasha at January 04, 2012 12:27 PM (jU5uf)
BTW:
Mitt Romney, fresh off a narrow Iowa caucus victory, said Wednesday that President Obama's decision to bypass the Senate and install Richard Cordray as consumer bureau head represents the worst of "Chicago-style" politics.
"This action represents Chicago-style politics at its worst and is precisely what then-Senator Obama claimed would be ‘the wrong thing to do.’ Sadly, instead of focusing on economic growth, he is once again focusing on creating more regulation, more government, and more Washington gridlock. As President, I will focus on turning around our economy so that America can once again lead the world in job creation,” Romney said in a statement.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 12:33 PM (NYnoe)
Mitt Romney, fresh off a narrow Iowa caucus
victory, said Wednesday that President Obama's decision to bypass the
Senate and install Richard Cordray as consumer bureau head represents
the worst of "Chicago-style" politics.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2012 04:33 PM (NYnoe)
That's like calling a rape an "unwanted advance". "Not very encouraging," I would say.
Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 12:42 PM (X3lox)
His Serene Majesty just doubled down on F-you by appointming three people to the NLRB - two of them had only been nominated in mid-December. That fat thug punk Richard Trumka is orgasmic. We are all screwed.
Posted by: Natasha at January 04, 2012 12:51 PM (jU5uf)
Posted by: Natasha at January 04, 2012 12:54 PM (jU5uf)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at January 04, 2012 01:06 PM (1iauC)
Question: Could a business that is regulated by CFPB challenge any post-appointment regulations because Cordray lacks Senate confirmation?
To counter the argument that the regulation would take place anyway (and maybe eliminate standing on the part of the business?), could you counter-argue that the choice on what/when regulations to create/enforce is discretionary in nature, due to limited resources of the agency, and that the choice was made by said unconfirmed appointee?
Would this side-step the Executive vs. Legislature “political question” that the courts historically by-pass?
Asked by an engineer and not a lawyer. Cross-posted over at Legal Insurrection.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at January 04, 2012 01:12 PM (kqqGm)
Comment of the Year.
When one branch of the government, specifically the one closest to the People, doesn't do what it is obligated to do to ensure checks and balances, Tyranny ensues. This nation is going to hell and the ride to get there will not be fun.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 04, 2012 01:39 PM (eHIJJ)
No it is time to fight, fight for freedom, fight for the country!!!!!!!
Posted by: bobbymike at January 04, 2012 03:19 PM (xpx19)
Posted by: footinmouth at January 04, 2012 03:53 PM (uenXQ)
Posted by: Kevin M at January 04, 2012 07:28 PM (nRJD8)
It should be a separate lawsuit for each act, preferrably filed in a different US District Court with a different named plaintiff who lives within that District, even if the legislation creating these boards specify that all such suits to be filed in the DC district, because the suits allege that the boards did not in fact do any such thing due to the unconstitutional and therefore invalid appointments. If that District rejects based on venue, refile in DC.
Posted by: The Monster at January 05, 2012 08:52 AM (08PGE)
Posted by: ipad ebook to download at January 05, 2012 06:05 PM (3OGep)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1964 seconds, 513 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
(Oh, and first?)
Posted by: Drumwaster at January 04, 2012 08:28 AM (ACJu8)