Tag Archives: recess appointments

U.S. Chamber Challenges Legality of NLRB Appointments

The U.S. Chamber and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) asked the DC Circuit for permission to join a lawsuit challenging the validity of three “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Thursday. Invalidating those recess appointments would prevent the NLRB from making rulings due to lack of quorum.

Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the Chamber said:

Appointing three of five members to the NLRB in a legally questionable way casts doubt on the work of the entire agency. We cautioned in January that shoehorning these nominees into office in this controversial way would throw the legal validity of every decision of the Board into question.  Our concern has now become a reality.  We are simply asking the courts to sort out the question of the NLRB’s authority quickly, so that employers and employees alike can have predictability and certainty.

Donohue also addressed how these appointments have created uncertainty:

Employers and employees need to know what it means when the NLRB orders an employer to bargain with a union, to modify its compensation and benefit plans, or to cease contracting work — to offer just a few examples.  Is the order legally rendered, or will it be invalidated in the future?  Without this kind of certainty, we cannot foster an environment that will lead to economic growth and job creation.

The Chamber asserts that “the courts should resolve the question of the NLRB’s authority quickly, so that employers and employees alike can have predictability and certainty.”

The Chamber’s motion for leave to intervene is available here.

Snippets From The SOTU: Obama Asks For More Power

Now I may be reading this wrong, but the last few sentences of this quote make it sound like our president is asking for Congress to grant the Executive branch (even) more powers.  (wording in bold is my emphasis)

“Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”  -President Barack Obama (SOTU 2012)

Now, let’s start with the first paragraph; there are two funny statements in it.  The first one is his lament that a simple majority “can’t get anything done” anymore.  What’s funny is that when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I don’t think Barack Obama gave one thought to how “easy” or “hard” it was to get anything done, but now that the Republicans have a chance to stand their ground, methinks the president doesn’t like it so much.

The second funny thing is that he asks for “judicial and public service” nominations to receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.  Ya know…  I just have to wonder if that request was on his mind after some recent shenanigans with a “recess appointment”.

But the not so funny thing I noticed comes at the end of that second paragraph.  When the average person hears Barack Obama says he wants to “consolidate bureaucracy” and make government “leaner” and “quicker”, they probably think it sounds reasonable.  But when I hear that statement (in its entirety), I wonder exactly what “authority” our president is asking Congress to grant him.  And when he says he wants government to be more “responsive to the needs of the American people”, I wonder what he will interpret those needs to be.  I mean not too long ago, he interpreted our needs to be stimulus for “shovel ready jobs” that didn’t exist.

Department of Justice defends Obama's illegal recess appointments

 “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

 James Madison

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council believes that President Obama’s “recess” appointments last week were legal:

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a Jan. 6  opinion at the request of the White House, saying that despite so-called pro-forma sessions of the Senate, some as brief as a few seconds, the Senate meetings do not constitute legitimate sessions that would preclude presidential recess appointments.

“Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 through January 23, in our judgment, those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner” that would prevent recess appointments, the OLC opinion said.  “Thus, the President has the authority under the Recess Appointments Clause to make appointments during this period.”

Notice that this defense only addresses the question of whether or not the Senate was in session when the appointments were made.  The OLC makes no attempt to discuss the crystal clear wording and intent in this part of the Constitution.  As I explained earlier this week, it doesn’t exactly take a Constitutional scholar to interpret this clause:

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.

Article 2, Section 2

Obviously, whether the Senate was in session last week or not is irrelevant.  These vacancies didn’t occur while the Senate was is recess so the president has absolutely no power of recess appointment in this situation.  That fact isn’t even up for debate.

This is why we as citizens must always pay close attention to everything the government is doing.  Anytime that politicians aren’t being held accountable, they will distort the language of the Constitution and the law in new ways to grant themselves more power.

Every president as far back as I can remember has chosen to simply ignore the part of the Recess Appointments Clause that limits his power to vacancies that occur during recess.  It might seem minor on its own but this reinterpretation of the Constitution gives the president just a little more power and weakens the separation of powers.  And we are allowing it to happen.

In how many other ways are public officials in all three branches finding subtle ways to grab a little bit more power without grabbing your attention?  All it takes is a little power here and there.  First through these unconstitutional recess appointments.  And then a little more through the NDAA.  And then a little more through SOPA.  Before you know it, most of the power that we have as individuals to protect ourselves from the government is gone.

The natural tendency for government is to grow and grab more power unless we as citizens are informed and actively engaged in defending our freedom.  No one else is going to defend it for us.  In fact, politicians actually have a whole lot to gain personally in both power and money from taking our freedom and selling it to special interest groups so we always have to be vigilant.

Little bits of power add up much faster than most of us can imagine.  Some people have a hard time getting outraged over the president overreaching on these recess appointments because it’s hard for them to imagine the United States becoming openly oppressive.  I can understand that.  But if we wait to start passionately fighting to defend our freedom until we can see tyranny on the horizon, it will be way too late.

Republicans Attempt to Change a Light Bulb

I don’t know precisely how many Republicans it takes to change a light bulb, but I can tell you that 289 are evidently not enough. That’s how many Republicans are in the House and Senate, yet they can’t accomplish a relatively simple task and repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs that went into effect January 1st.

And this repeal isn’t like overturning Obamacare, which will be Stalingrad for the socialists in D.C. Democrats don’t really have anything invested in the Twisty Light Bulb Act, other than their habitual environmental hysteria. The ban was passed in the waning days of “the Failed Bush Administration.” Repealing this law is not a repudiation of Obama, it’s a poke in the eye to George W and Democrats loathe him anyway. Yet House leadership is unable to persuade Democrats in the Senate to pass this small repeal.

Thus the first bulb to go is the 100–watt model, which means the invaluable 100–200–250 three–way bulb, so useful for reading, is going the way of the dodo. To be replaced by the single power twisty bulb, which either gives off a ghastly zombie–like white or a dingy yellow light. You’ll feel like you’re reading with the help of a whale oil lamp and for only three times the cost of the incandescent bulb it replaced. And this scientific breakthrough in illumination is like cars used to be: you have to warm it up a few minutes before it’s ready to go.

In addition to being more expensive, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFB) contain mercury, so if you drop one on the kitchen floor you suddenly escalate from a standard household cursing situation into a hazmat incident. Federal guidelines assure us that — like the batteries in a Chevy Volt — the small amount of mercury in a CFB is perfectly safe while rolling around on the linoleum.
Here’s an environmental hazard Rule of Thumb: Any given substance or activity is only toxic in direct proportion to the number of Republicans and capitalists that support its use.

This is why water and chemicals used in the natural gas fracking process, which occurs mile or two beneath the earth’s surface, are a civilization–ending threat to the water table located up to two miles above where the fracking takes place.
While the mercury right there on the kitchen floor is only a minor, Environmental Defense Fund–approved annoyance.
And while we’re in a fracking frame of mind, the Chicken Little Earth Protection Council is now blaming the process for Ohio earthquakes.

This is strange. I don’t recall underground nuclear tests being blamed for causing earthquakes. Yet “environmentalists” would have us believe that what is essentially a geologic enema is more dangerous to our threatened tectonic plates than detonating an atomic bomb!

Meanwhile, back on the surface, the House did manage to remove funds for enforcement of the ban from the December spending bill. This is a meaningless gesture not fit for inclusion in a campaign commercial. It’s like telling the trucking industry that drivers no longer have to obey the speed limit because Congress is not allowing the highway patrol to buy gas.
Republican’s futile efforts to make a real difference in Washington loom large in light of Obama’s recent ‘recess’ appointments. This action is a direct challenge to Constitutional government and House and Senate leadership does not appear to care.
The Constitution specifically states “Neither House…shall without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days…” The House has not consented to a Senate adjournment; therefore Congress remains in session. The fact this frustrates Obama does not make his appointments constitutional.

Obama doesn’t like checks and balances, and he knows his picks for the Labor Relations Board are so anti–business they would not survive the Senate confirmation process. Without an aggressive response an administration filled with appointees like Energy Secretary Steven Chu — who justifies the light bulb ban by saying, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money” — will be able to run roughshod over Congress and the nation.

Sure Boehner and McConnell issued pro forma objections, but where is the line in the sand? Republican leadership should be making the case to the public and informing the President that no additional business will be conducted until these unconstitutional appointments are retracted.

If these appointments are allowed to stand the remainder of Obama’s first term will be government by edict, while Republicans in Congress hope they can be rescued from themselves by a GOP victory in November.

What recess appointment power?

Since the moment President Obama announced his appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board, there has been an ongoing debate over whether or not the Senate was in recess when these appointments were made.  The whole spectacle has been really interesting – but it’s basically irrelevant in this situation.

A better question to be asking at this point is – doesn’t it seem odd that the Founders would require the President to get his appointments confirmed by the Senate… and then let him just do whatever he wants through recess appointments?  Why would they do something that seems so illogical.

The short answer: they didn’t.

If a vacancy in the executive branch opens up while the Senate is in recess, then the president has the power to appoint someone to serve temporarily.  But unless a vacancy actually occurs while the Senate is out of session, the president has absolutely no power of recess appointment.

Don’t believe it?  The Constitution is pretty clear on the topic:

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.

Article 2, Section 2

That clause couldn’t any more straightforward.  But in case there is still any doubt, Alexander Hamilton explained the purpose of this clause in Federalist #67 as well:

The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments “during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” (emphasis in original)

The fact that the three appointments the president made to the NLRB are unconstitutional is not up for debate.  But Obama did make a weak attempt to argue that his appointment of Richard Corday to the CFPB is different because it’s a new agency and it can’t function without a director.

Unfortunately for the president, he’s dead wrong on that point as well:

“It has been held by that venerable body [the Senate], that if new offices are created by Congress, the president cannot, after the adjournment of the senate, make appointments to fill them.  The vacancies do not happen during the recess of the senate.” (emphasis in original text)

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 1825


By “vacancies” they understood to be meant vacancies occurring from death, resignation, promotion, or removal.  The word “happen” had relation to some causality, not provided for by law.  If the senate are in session, when offices are created by law, which as of yet have not been filled, and nominations are not then made to them by the president, he cannot appoint to such offices during the recess of the senate, because the vacancies did not happen during the recess of the senate.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 1833

So the purpose of recess appointments was in no way intended to give the president a way to get around Senate decisions that he doesn’t like (shocker!) – it was to ensure that the government can continue to function if something unexpected happens in the executive branch while the Senate is out of town.  Now that makes a lot more sense!

Considering that President Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, you’d think he’d already know something basic like that.  I guess an education from Columbia and Harvard isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

If it was, he should already know that the system for confirming appointments wasn’t created by accident.  It has an essential purpose – to limit the power of the president.  More specifically, it was designed to limit the power of presidents who say things like this:

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

This kind of mindset is exactly why the system of checks and balances in the Constitution is so critical to protecting our freedom.  He is determined to appoint political cronies to certain executive agencies regardless of their qualifications (or lack thereof).  We can only imagine what he’d be doing if he wasn’t being restricted by that darned Constitution thingy.

When the Founders required Senate approval for those nominations, they were trying to force the president to nominate high quality candidates and to prevent him from using appointments as political favors, among other things.  So, for example, if the president started passing out appointments to reward political donors the Senate has the power to stop him from doing that.

But if the president has the power to just install anyone he wants during a recess every time the Senate rejects his nominee, the whole system of checks and balances falls apart.  At a time when the president has actually come out and announced that it is his intention to ignore the separation of powers and grab as much power as possible, the system of checks and balances is more important than ever… and our liberty is in serious danger.

This is where the hyper-partisan crowd starts screaming, “But, but, but Bush did the same thing when he made John Bolton a recess appointment!!”  Yep.  And it was unconstitutional when Bush did it too.  The fact that Bush violated the Constitution isn’t an appropriate reason for Obama to double down on the illegality.

If we accepted the logic of the folks who argue that these appointments are acceptable because there’s a precedent, that would mean that Obama would be justified in rounding up all the Japanese people in the country and putting them in internment camps… just because FDR did it once.  Obviously, that would be absurd.

As a nation we need to be asking ourselves if the Constitution actually means something or if we’d rather be governed entirely by precedents that are usually set by politicians who are trying to enlarge their own power.

The Constitution was carefully designed to protect your freedom – while relying solely on precedent provides no limit on the amount of power the government can have over your life.  We ought to be careful in choosing which one we want to govern us because once we go down the road to tyranny there’s no turning back.

Mitchell & Ray – January 5th- Stupid News, Iowa, Recess Appointments

When: Thursday, January5th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where:Streaming Internet Radio

What: Join independent political commentators Michelle Ray and Rich Mitchell as they discuss the issues impacting Americans.


Tonight: Stupid news, Iowa, Obama’s recce appointments and where the hell is the Tea Party?

Show Recording: 

[mp3player width=300 height=75 config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://media2.conservativedailynews.com/shows/mitchell-and-ray/Show_1-5-12.mp3]

and .. the non-flash, iGadget-friendly version:

<a href=”http://media2.conservativedailynews.com/shows/mitchell-and-ray/Show_1-5-12.mp3″>Stupid News, Iowa, Recess Appointments</a>

Heil to the Chief

The dictator-in-chief continues to show his true colors (for those who are not color blind) with alarming news as to how he intends to do the work of Congress, without Congress.

According to cnsnews.com, President Obama has threatened to use executive actions since Congress will not submit to his demands. Anything less than full compliance with Barack Hussein Obama is “not working with” him. POTUS needs to be reminded that legislation is the job of the legislative branch of government and executing is the job of the executive branch. In other words, he needs to stay in his own area and do his own job. If he would do just that, he would not have time to meddle in the affairs of congress. But then, when you have nothing but disdain for the US Constitution and view it as a hindrance, trivial matters like switching job descriptions are no problem.

More than once over the past year, he has mentioned meeting with Congress, and has talked about sending things to Congress for them to pass. There is one little problem with this: it’s not his job! I realize anyone can write a bill, and only a member of Congress can introduce it, but his intention is to not just discuss, but to dictate. Congress is supposed to craft legislation (remember, they are the legislative branch) then they send it over to him to either sign or veto.

His reason for meddling where he doesn’t belong? The tired old mantra of growing the economy and creating jobs has been mentioned. It is not the job of the President or Congress to grow the economy or create jobs. Government needs to get out of the way and let the free market work.

His latest executive action two days after this announcement? He has appointed a director to the newly formed Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. What was the reason: a mortgage company took advantage of some elderly company and it was a crisis that just couldn’t be wasted. Result: a new watchdog group has been created out of thin air, to be funded by money that will also have to be created out of thin air. (Let us stop now for a moment of silence as we meditate on the proverb of the fox guarding the henhouse).

Obama has affirmed and re-affirmed that he wants to work with Congress only to then work around Congress. Pouting and taking your toys home is for children. A wise Rabbi once said, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” It’s time to grow up, follow the rules and do things the right way. Mr. Obama should consider working with Congress, the constitutional way, the right way, through the protocol of the executive office.

Joseph Harris has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on WorldNetdaily, Conservative Daily News, Intellectual Conservative, and Land of the Free. [email protected]

The NDAA Power Grab

Much is being made about the most recent power grab by the White House – specifically, Wednesday’s bypassing of the Senate to install three members to the National Labor Relations Board and the appointment of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In order to justify and defend these actions, progressives argue that President George W. Bush made far more recess appointments than has the current White House occupant. While that may be true, it’s completely beside the point. The issue isn’t that occupy Oval Office made recess appointments. It’s how and when he made them. The present occupant acted just one day after the Senate held a session and a recess of at least three days is required before the chief executive has the power to make recess appointments.

As he said Wednesday while speaking before an audience in Shaker Heights, Ohio, “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer. When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Quite understandibly, Senate Republicans were not pleased by this action. Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, declared that the move “arrogantly circumvented the American people.” Yes, it’s easy for members of the Senate to express outrage at this arrogant power grab; one in a long series of steps taken by this White House to marginalize Congress.

But where were the high and mighty principles when you passed H.R. 1540: the National Defense Authorization Act, which expands the battlefield to include the United States and gives authority to the president to militarily detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge or trial, on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist? Did passage of this bill not also symbolize where someone “arrogantly circumvented the American people”? This law, which “puts our people at risk”, is a violation of the Fifth (“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) and Sixth (“the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”) Amendments.

In the Senate, 46 Democratic Senators and 40 Republican Senators, including Senator McConnell voted in favor of this violation of the Bill of Rights. For the record, let it also state that in the House, 93 Democrats and 190 Republicans also voted aye.[1][2]

The NDAA is an open assault by government on the Liberties of U.S. Citizens. The very Liberties secured and protected by the document they swore to defend upon their inauguration, the United States Constitution. At this point, every Citizen of these United States of America is clearly obligated to take the government to task for this flagrant violation of their Rights. Each and every House Representative and Senator who voted in favor of this unconstitutional slip into tyranny should be voted out of office.

By the way, this bill was signed into law on December 31, 2011 while the golfer in chief was in Kailua, Hawaii enjoying his family’s 17 day, $4 million dollar vacation.

Happy New Year.

[1] Senate Web Site: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230
[2] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

The Danger of the Cordray Recess Appointment

Back on Dec 6th and 7th of this year a two-part article appeared on CDN that described the method the Obama administration was using to take over U.S. Banks by copying exactly how Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was taking over every part of private industry in creating his Communist Collective down in South America. Please read, U.S. Banks Being Taken Over Using Chavez-Style Manipulation Part 1 to understand the eery similarities between Chavez and Obama’s methods of operation today. Then, in Part 2 of that same article, it is exposed exactly how Indy Mac bank of California became One West bank, as the FDIC, Obama and Bernanke-Approved Bank Fraud lined the pockets of Dell, Paulson and Billionaire Leftist money-manipulator, George Soros, while also depleting FDIC funding, thus leaving U.S taxpayers to foot the bill.

The Indy-Mac fraud was in fact a test-run and model to use for the takeover of U.S. Banks and effect a major shift of financial power to assorted leftists like George Soros and crony-capitalists like Dell and Paulson. And they use the Dodd-Frank supposed financial reform bill, in conjunction with a politically injected CFPB ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) appointed “Czar” to complete the tri-fecta of taking over banks, turning them over to the likes of George Soros and assorted crony-capitalists, and then sticking the taxpayers with the losses from these same banks through depleting the FDIC fund, which is now about bankrupt.

Enter the latest unconstitutional recess appointment and “Money Czar” Richard Cordray. While President Obama was campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime once again in Ohio, he announced this latest violation of the U.S. Constitution with a load of misinformation, the likes of which Mr. Josef Goebbels would surely be proud of: “Today, I’m appointing Richard as America’s consumer watchdog,” Obama told the crowd. “That means he’ll be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interest of American consumers. His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions.”

“Looking out for the best interest” of whom Mr. President? George Soros? Michael Dell? Is that what we are supposed to believe is the “Middle Class” you are “protecting” with this sham? How about when it was recently announced that the bank of America was going to charge debit card fees and the so-called financial reform bill permitted it? Sure they stopped it simply because customers started leaving the bank in droves over it, but it was legal under your new law. What Obama does not want the citizenry to understand is the fact that Richard Cordray will now have unfettered access to the taxpayer’s bank account without any input from Congress. Zero. Nada.

In the article Cordray Can Wait from Investors.com, accessed Jan. 05, 2012, we see the following: (emphasis added)

As Ohio’s attorney general, Cordray’s main focus was making Wall Street pay for the financial crisis. He sued BofA, AIG, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and other Wall Street firms on behalf of public-employee pensions. His shakedown netted trial lawyers and the unions they represent for more than $1 billion in settlements and fees.

Most concerning, this wannabe federal bank sheriff is in the back pocket of trial lawyers. The law firm that represented Ohio in the AIG case pumped $125,000 into Cordray’s campaigns. Other firms donated $200,000 to Cordray, who plans to run for Ohio governor one day. The new bureau will spawn more work for trial lawyers as it investigates banks for loosely defined “abusive” practices, including loan price “discrimination.”.

This recess appointment will fund the DNC through crony-trial lawyers for decades to come as was also documented here. Last but not least, from Investors.com we see this tidbit: (emphasis added)

As Democrats set up the CFPB, the director enjoys unprecedented power, reporting only to the president. The agency is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded outside the annual appropriations process (with a startup budget of half a billion dollars). In effect, it’s not accountable to Congress or the American public.
The Senate GOP threatens to filibuster Cordray’s final confirmation vote unless the agency adds a bipartisan panel to check its director. They don’t want to give another activist appointee blank-check authority to go after banks and provide even more grist for class-action lawyers. Someone’s got to stop the shakedown.

More race-based grift for class-action, DNC-donor trial lawyers? Do you mean like this example here: In that info-byte we see that bank of America will dole out $335 million dollars to “Black and Hispanic” borrowers because they were supposedly charged more for home loans. Apparently it doesn’t matter if these “victims” of unfair lending practices were very high-risk borrowers with no proven ability to pay when Democrats and Progressives forced banks to make sure “everyone gets a home regardless of ability to pay” mandates that caused the housing crisis in the first place. NOTE: With Blacks and Hispanics making up a small portion of the U.S. Population, isn’t it strange that white people are not included in these reparations, I mean settlement? How about Asians? Back to Investors.com for some more truth about Cordray being illegally injected into our government and his agenda:(emphasis added)

The new bureau will spawn more work for trial lawyers as it investigates banks for loosely defined “abusive” practices, including loan price “discrimination. Heading its Office of Fair Lending is Patrice Ficklin, a a black civil-rights lawyers who headed Fannie Mae’s racial grievance unit. She leads a team using new race-based lending data to crack down on banks that apply prudent lending standards equally to minorities.

Richard Cordray and Patrice Ficklin will now be able to dip into the wallets of the American taxpayers, pay trial lawyers that donate to the DNC millions of taxpayer dollars, and further redistribute those stolen tax dollars to DNC voters of their choice without any oversight from Congress. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

Obama To Get His Way Again – With Recess Appointment

 The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection was created in July, 2010, as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The bureau’s goals include watching for major violations of mortgage disclosure laws and other infractions at the firms that could cause consumers to unwittingly sign up for risky loans. In May, 2011, forty-four Republican senators said they would refuse to vote on any nominee to lead the bureau, demanding instead that the agency replace a single leader with a board of directors, arguing that the agency had too much power and was unaccountable.

In July, 2011, President Barack Hussein Obama named Richard Cordray, former attorney general of Ohio, to lead the bureau. In December, 2011, despite an extraordinary campaign for confirmation by the White House, his nomination was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate. On January 4, 2012, officials said that Obama had decided to use a recess appointment to put Cordray into the position. But there is just one small problem – the senate has never technically adjourned since they left town right before Christmas, so Obama cannot make recess appointments. Did that stop Obama? To quote the late John Belushi, “Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.” Despite the senate’s non-recess, Obama is ignoring the rules and will try to appoint Cordray anyway. Installing Cordray without Senate confirmation would inflame already high partisan tensions, and could make relations between the branches of government even more contentious.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, in a tweet, said “We Can’t Wait: Today in Ohio, President Obama will announce the recess appointment of Consumer Watchdog Richard Cordray.” Cordray was to appear with Obama during the official announcement in Ohio. This move by Obama is sure to raise questions of executive power and whether the administration is overstepping its authority. Said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT): “This is a very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House. Circumventing the Senate and tossing out decades of precedent to appoint an unaccountable czar to appease its liberal base is beneath the Office of the President.”

Obama and his administration seem to get away with these shenanigans on a regular basis simply by declaring themselves above the rules. It is typical of an administration that flouts laws and rules in order to achieve its goals.

But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.