Obama to appoint Cordray to head CFPB

greg334

Veteran Expediter
The senate has to either confirm the appointment or not confirm it. It can be brought up as the first order of business when they get back.

I don't agree with his actions but I'm not going to get all bent up over it at this point.

Mentioned here and on fox is the idea of a law suit which can't happen by a member of the senate. The thing they can do is bring up a impeachment charge or invalidate the appointment with a vote in the senate.

Yes hate seems to be driving a lot of people on this subject. If Obama crapper without washing his hands, I think people would get bent over it.

In this case, the world isn't going to end and there is tome to fix the problem.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
obama-toilet.jpg


Obama Crapper
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There seems to some confusion about recess appointments, such as the one with John Bolton. When he was appointed, there was an actual recess in effect with no pro-forma sessions being held. These latest appointments by Barack Hussein Obama were done in spite of the pro forma sessions going on, one of which was held to pass one of his appropriations bills (so much for "gimmicks"). Politico has a pretty good article dealing with the details of the whole business of recess appointments, and includes the following (bold emphasis mine):
“This is not a nice, clear-cut area at all,” said Robert Dove, a former Senate parliamentarian, when asked about the implications of the president’s move.
Legal experts said Wednesday that there was no precedent for such recess appointments and that it would likely be put to the test in the courts by industry groups seeking to challenge regulations issued by the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose new head, Richard Cordray, received an appointment even though the chamber was technically in session every few days...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) began holding pro forma sessions periodically in Bush’s second term in order to prevent controversial recess appointments like Steven Bradbury being named to the top ranks of the Justice Department. The Bush administration protested the move, but the president didn’t make recess appointments during the pro forma sessions.
Regarding another question, a member of the Senate CAN file action in court to reverse the appointment as did Sen. Ten Kennedy in 2004 over the William Pryor recess appointment. However, there seems to be a consensus of opinion that any court actions filed over the Obama appointments will be done by industry groups. Another stumbling block might be the stipulation of the Dodd-Frank bill that requires the director in Cordray's position to be confirmed by the Senate. At any rate, this in-your-face power grab by BHO should be challenged at every possible level, otherwise we could have presidents appointing anybody they want any time they want to. One would think that uber-constitutionalist congressman Ron Paul would be going nuts over this deal.




 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul. In his long congressional career, he has had nearly zero effect on matters of substance. Pretty much devoid of leadership capabilities, where are his legislative accomplishments? Ron Paul is simply another self-promoting huckster who found his niche pimping prattle to Libertarians. There is a reason why not even one serious political thinker has endorsed this man.

Always the petulant clown, Ron Paul's quadrennial freakshow will predictably end in a tantrum.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I also find it interesting that there are so many Ron Paul supporters in this forum and not one has complained about this. What about the formation of ANOTHER government agency? Why be "thrilled" that King Putz the 1st is not only likely in contempt of congress, but is starting this agency? What is wrong with this picture?
I do believe that participation is optional.

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is not particularly an issue I'm currently focused on - it's a matter of relative importances ... other fish to fry. Looks like other folks have begun to speak to it though.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I do believe that participation is optional.

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is not particularly an issue I'm currently focused on - it's a matter of relative importances ... other fish to fry. Looks like other folks have begun to speak to it though.

I was just wondering out loud. I just find it interesting. Here is ANOTHER government agency, with a budget, no oversight by congress, controlled by the executive branch, with regulatory power. That is totally contrary to our Constitution. It can bypass congress, therefore the People, to impose the will of the executive (dictator) who they answer to.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
One would think that uber-constitutionalist congressman Ron Paul would be going nuts over this deal.
Well, unlike some (and particular some here) Dr. Paul is motivated, not by abject, blind hatred of a particular individual, which seems to cause some to seize on any and every opportunity (even those which are fallacious and silly) to bash a particular individual, but his regard for the Constitution:

“It is disappointing that a former constitutional law professor does not understand that the president is not a dictator or a king who can simply ignore the Constitution whenever he feels frustrated by the system of checks and balances wisely put in place by our Founders,” Paul said in a statement.

Paul added that he has opposed “unconstitutional power grabs” by presidents of both parties and argued that that consistency makes him “the only Republican candidate with the credibility and the record” to challenge Obama.

“If the president insists on behaving in such a cavalier manner with regard to requirements set forth by the Constitution, then action by Congress may become necessary to rein in his flagrant contempt for the rules,” he said.

Ron Paul on Cordray appointment: ‘The president is not a dictator or a king’
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Regarding another question, a member of the Senate CAN file action in court to reverse the appointment as did Sen. Ten Kennedy in 2004 over the William Pryor recess appointment.

Actually the suit failed, as it should have. There was a couple issues with the suit and like the circumstances of the time, it was a 'I'll show you' moment by the Dems in the senate. The resulting compromise that was created by McCain and others showed their lack of resolve in the senate, making McCain and the gang of 14 more of the issue than the issue of the appointment and further proved what others seen with the republicans, a willingness to compromise but not fight for issues that are important (makes you wonder what kind of idiot president McCain would have made - talk about Obama, he would have been worse).

Furthermore, the suit was expected to be turned over to the SC who would have most likely refused to hear it because of the issue involved.

Pretty much devoid of leadership capabilities, where are his legislative accomplishments?

Are you talking about the entire republican party too?

I would think that the people standing on the stage in any debate, only one shows some sense of direction;

Romney is Obama with different skin and a different party.

Perry is a bit scary but I think he would make a good VP

Huntsman, well I think he would make a great ambassador.

Santorum, sorry dude, this guy speaks like others in the past, especially Democrats.

So you have Paul who I don't see running around screaming about Obama but rather saying what he would do.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Because several of you seem to feel that it's much to do about nothing and that it won't set up a dangerous precedent, how would you feel if it had been a Supreme Court appointment?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Because several of you seem to feel that it's much to do about nothing and that it won't set up a dangerous precedent, how would you feel if it had been a Supreme Court appointment?

Not to worry, soon the Supreme Court will not have the role set for it under the Constitution. We won't have the constitution we have today and under the "new" constitution the supreme court will no longer be part of the "checks and balances" it will be there mainly to perform sham trails on "anti government instigators" and then insuring that they are executed promptly.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Try to keep up. Maybe less face palms, or would help you stay up with the conversation. :rolleyes:.

Project much?

The one that I brought up in my first post in this thread. He apparently violated the Constitution by making a recess appointment when Congress was not in recess.

I think Greg covered that quite well.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul. In his long congressional career, he has had nearly zero effect on matters of substance.
Really ?

That's funny ... because it seems to me that he has managed to change the entire nature of the national conversation in the context of both what the GOP, and we as a country, ought to be about.

You see what Obama did on defense yesterday ?

Do you have any idea whatsoever why that happened ? (other than some whacked-out, hate-inspired conspiracy theory) What motivated that ?

He's certainly paying attention to that 21% percent that Dr. Paul garnered in Iowa .... and what it consisted of.

In that respect he's far, far smarter than the dimwits, nimrods, and putzes that comprise much of the current GOP - a rather odd assortment of socialist neocon warmongers ..... and so-called religious/social "conservatives", who despite maintaining an air of moral superiority and self-professed religious piety, show themselves to be a largely irreligious, morally-bankrupt lot - since they, in their cowardice, are totally willing to trust and support men who have extensive personal histories of flawed morals, character and personal integrity in practice (provided of course those men can say two words: Jesus and Israel), and who, as a lot, seem to be utterly unable themselves, for the most part, to actually embrace, follow, and practice the philosophy of the One they claim to follow .....

By sacrificing their own principles, ideals and personal integrity to the interests of expediency and short-sighted political interest and power (in terms of their busy-body enforcement of their morals onto others), the citizens of this country are placing themselves in a very dangerous position that the Founders warned of:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Those in a state of intellectual confusion and moral misguidedness derive an incorrect meaning from the above, in which they pervertedly believe that the advice is that one should use force on others, when actually the admonition is one for personal restraint of one's self (and one's nation) ....

This confusion and misguidedness is thoroughly evidenced in the attitudes of these folks with respect to their relationships with others - both foreign and domestic.

Pretty much devoid of leadership capabilities, where are his legislative accomplishments?
You mean like the Lizard's success in helping to create of the Department of Education ?

Is that the type of "accomplishment" you had in mind ?

Or was it something else ?

Ron Paul is simply another self-promoting huckster who found his niche pimping prattle to Libertarians.
He at least appears to espouse, follow, practice the philosophy of the One he claims to follow in both word and deed .... unlike many of the charlatans who endlessly publicly profess that they do, when in fact their very own words and actions otherwise belie it ...

There is a reason why not even one serious political thinker has endorsed this man.
ROTFLMAO .......

Well, if your definition of serious political thinkers includes as examples Rich Lowery, Jonah "My-Mommy-Found-The-Stains" Goldberg, Charles "Skeletor" Krauthammer, Flush Limbo, Marxist Levin, Fawn Shammity, Jeffie Lord, and others of a similar philosophical ilk that reside in the Neoconmunist™ echo-chamber that falsely tries to pass itself off as "conservatism" ..... well then, no ....

That foreign plague, which has it's roots in the godless, morally-bankrupt ideology of Communism, has infested this country and the American mindset for far too long - and needs to be completely exposed for exactly what it is, where it comes from, and how it came to infect the American mind.

That debate and discussion has started - and it will most definitely continue ... undoubtedly against the wishes of those who continue to embrace it's putrid, rotten, and stinking corpse ...

FWIW, here's a fairly serious political thinker that endorsed Dr. Paul - Michael Scheuerer - former CIA's Bin Laden Tracking Unit chief:

Iowa’s Choice: Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines

Although I have no idea whether it is complete, here's a list of endorsements (note what is lined up for New Hampshire):

Paul Campaign 2012 Endorsements

Always the petulant clown, Ron Paul's quadrennial freakshow will predictably end in a tantrum.
These words of yours may end up being truer than you can ever possibly imagine ..... pray that it doesn't come to pass.

In the meantime, you can always just watch Rapture Ready to pass the time ..... it never gets old, as seemingly religious lunacy is never out of fashion .....
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
" You see what Obama did on defense yesterday ?"

Yep, set us up for a REAL war soon. Wrong cuts at the wrong time. Ron Paul's views on defense are even worse. He has NO clue. He means well, but has ZERO experience.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Project much?



I think Greg covered that quite well.

I don't think Greg covered it at all. Unless I missed something (which I might have) his contention is that it has been done by at least four Presidents. My point is that the President deemed the Congress to be in recess. I don't see where he has that authority. Either show me where another President has made a recess appointment while the Congress was in session, or show me that the Congress was in recess. Its very simple to refute my contention. But simply saying that its been done doesn't make it so.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Yep, set us up for a REAL war soon. Wrong cuts at the wrong time. Ron Paul's views on defense are even worse. He has NO clue. He means well, but has ZERO experience.
Well, Layout .....

First off, please understand that this is not intended as a personal attack - just a very blunt statement of my perspective.

But here's the reality of it for me:

I have read several of Michael Scheurer's books, and much of his other public writings. I find informed, logical, well-reasoned and persuasive arguments, backed up by facts - which support Paul's policy positions. There are others which support Dr. Paul's position simply from a perspective of avoiding national financial suicide ....

I have also spent a good part of 5 years on here listening to you - and mostly what I have heard sounds very similar to necon fear-mongering - some of which quite often has approached hysteria - with very little in the way well-reasoned, and persuasive argumentation. Most of this is couched in a "well-if-I-told-ya-I'd-have-to-kill-ya" rhetoric .....

Pardon me if I am singularly unimpressed.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - and others are entitled to judge your opinions based on the quality of the presentation you make. I find you thoroughly unpersuasive.

And I am sorry to tell you that I am not the only one who holds that view.

From my perspective, based on my observations as outlined above, my opinion of your credibility in these matters ain't real high ...... afterall, you just got done recently telling us all how you willingly and intentionally lie .....

While I'm at it let me clear something else up:

It is the Soldier, not the Poet
Who has given us the Freedom of Speech


FALSE - it is the CREATOR from which that RIGHT derives ....

It is the Soldier, not the Campus Organizer
That has given us the Freedom to Demonstrate


FALSE - it is the CREATOR from which that RIGHT derives ....

It is the Soldier, who salutes the flag,
who serves beneath the flag,
and who's coffin is drapped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.


The solider ...... who "allows" .... the protestor to burn the flag ? :confused:

:mad:

FALSE - it is the CREATOR from which that RIGHT derives ....

The good Fr. O'Brien should, if still living, make a serious effort to pull his head out of his posterior ..... and those who similarly share such sentiments of an undying love and worship of militarism and anything in a uniform perhaps ought to redirect that affinity to freedom and liberty .....
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I am NOT a fear or a war MONGER. I just lived an entirely different life than you. I look at things from a different reality.

IF you had been reading and paying attention to things I have said you would be able to understand it is NOT the idea of cutting military spending that I am opposed to at all. I would have been cutting ages ago if I had the ability to do so. My cuts would have been in FAR different areas. They would have taken place in the context of times. These cuts, and from what little I can learn about Paul's, are entirely wrong. They we weaken us in a way that invites attack.

Someday we may meet, then MAYBE I can help you to understand where I am coming from. It is very clear that you don't. I don't believe that I could ever convince you that I am right, time will do that for me, and would not even try to do so.

I am TRYING to kept this on a non-personal basis. It is NOT easy. Maybe you can explain how YOU think these kinds of cuts will help and why?

Any who, I am leaving soon. Back over to FDCC to finish up and then to the house.

You are welcome to pick on me and ridicule my life behind my back as much as you like!:p Then, when I get back on line I will fly off the handle at you! Then nothing will be learned or accomplished as per normal. :D
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Someday we may meet, then MAYBE I can help you to understand where I am coming from. Any who, I am leaving soon. Back over to FDCC to finish up and then to the house.
If only I had known you were over here :D

I live about 7 minutes from FDCC on Boetller Road ....

Dunno if you were travelling solo or not, but I would have offered to buy ya lunch (or coffee) ... and let you educate me ... but unfortunately it's bad timing for me, as I have other pressing matters I have to attend today :(
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
In post #4 I referenced the WSJ. Haven't been to Fox News yet.

Witness has assumed incorrectly that Fox News has only taken the obvious "anti Obama position" on this issue. Liberal Shepard Smith had a guest on his show yesterday and basically said this much ado about nothing,which I strongly disagree with. Fox News also had someone on saying this is unconstitutional and a abuse of power.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Witness has assumed incorrectly that Fox News has only taken the obvious "anti Obama position" on this issue. Liberal Shepard Smith had a guest on his show yesterday and basically said this much ado about nothing,which I strongly disagree with. Fox News also had someone on saying this is unconstitutional and a abuse of power.

images
 
Top