President Obama made two interesting personnel announcements yesterday, nominating Mary Jo White to lead the Security and Exchange Commission, and Richard Cordray to continue leading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The former is fascinating in its own right -- White's legal career makes her an interesting choice for the SEC -- but it's worth pausing to ponder Cordray's fate.
You'll recall that President Obama and congressional Democrats created the CFPB in 2010, over the fierce opposition of congressional Republicans and financial industry lobbyists. Elizabeth Warren, now a Democratic senator, helped establish the office, and Obama tasked Cordray with leading the agency.
But that proved to be trickier than it should have been. When Senate Republicans refused to allow a confirmation vote on Cordray's nomination, Obama gave him a recess appointment, along with new members of the National Labor Relations Board. This morning, a federal court said the NLRB appointments were improper since Congress wasn't technically in recess, and though the case didn't involve Cordray specifically, the court's decision creates some uncertainty about the status of his position.
While that's sorted out, the obvious question is straightforward: why can't Cordray get an up-or-down vote?
As long-time readers may recall, no one, on either side of the aisle, have questioned Cordray's qualifications. On the contrary, he's done exceptional work on behalf of American consumers, and if the Senate were to vote on his nomination, it would be approved fairly easily.
So what's the problem? Senate Republicans, who lost the fight to kill the CFPB nearly three years ago, never really got over it, and still strongly disapprove of the agency's existence. With that in mind, when Cordraty's nomination originally came up, GOP senators said they would refuse to allow the agency to function -- or do any work at all -- unless Democrats agreed to weaken the CFPB's powers and lessen consumer protections.
Just so we're clear, this had never happened in American history. There was no precedent for the Senate blocking a qualified nominee solely because a minority of the chamber did not like the existence of the agency the nominee was selected to lead.
It was, to a very real extent, a nullification strategy -- Republicans in the Senate minority sought to block the enforcement of federal law through the confirmation process.
Traditionally, if the Republicans wanted to alter the powers of the CFPB, it would write legislation, send it to committee, bring it to the floor, send it to the other chamber, etc. But that takes time and effort, and might not work. So, instead, Republicans said they would block the existing federal law from taking effect unless Democrats accepted changes demanded by the financial industry lobbyists.
Democrats refused, and Obama gave Cordray the job anyway, with a recess appointment that's now facing legal jeopardy. The president re-nominated him yesterday in the hopes the new Senate will at least bring his nomination up for a vote.
Will Senate Republicans pursue the identical nullification strategy again? They have not yet said, but we should find out soon enough.
Leave a Comment:
Harry Reid is about to be reminded that he's been a fool.
Reid cannot get it through his head that these senate repubs are not reasonable men...cannot be expected to demonstrate any integrity and act like petulant children. Senate dems might as well go home until McConnell gives them permission to pass legislation. Whatever McConnell says...goes or else the answer is NO. The dems new motto CAVING TO REPUBLICANS. How can anyone respect the senate dem majority who volunteered to wear republican handcuffs for another 2yrs.
Carl Levin has grown too old and feeble for his job. To give up the 2 or 3 times dems might use the filibuster so repubs can continue using it for more than 350 times shows Levin's small minded and limited thinking. Now we have virtually useless senate dems always under the thumb of McConnell. How stupid.
Urg. Without reforming the rules of the Senate, it's like the Confederate States of America is in control of the U.S. Senate. Ick.
According to Harry Reid they won't because he fixed all that with "filibuster reform".
No worries.
Republicans did that because the agency CFPB is beyond the reach of Congress. It is immune from regulation, and has a separate budget funded by the Fed. But it is overseen by no one.
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/07/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-unaccountable-and-costly
so the gop are for regulation now lmao , classic gop snake oil
regulation.....except that's their job, you're saying their should be regulation of the regulators by.....regulators???? Themselves????
Dodd Frank is a mistake but the idea it gives regulators in any way dangerous unstrained power is simply not the case. After 2008 it should be clear that the people who are supposed to be overseeing the financial sector seem to be both not doing their job and engaging in corrupt practices. Something must done. It's quite reasonable to do this although if they'd just bring back glass-steagal alot of these things probably can be avoided. We had no problems like these when that was in effect, there was no reason to end it and it clearly has been a mistake.
It's important to look at unfair lending practices and cash advances which are entirely unregulated. There are no rules for these cash advance places. Despite what they advertize and how their services will be financial "problem solvers" alot of things actually manipulate people in paying them back at like 500% interest. More private debt will be very harmful to the economy and that is what many of these places actually contribute.
Gosh, I wonder if the filibuster reform many (useless) Senate Democrats were cooing over last night will prevent Republicans from stopping Cordray's nomination.
That was certainly the implication. Unfortunately, the wording of the resolutions isn't up on THOMAS yet, so it's hard to be sure. (The 'reforms' are S. Res. 15 and S. Res. 16, which is how you'd search for them on THOMAS.) Sub-cabinet appointments were supposed to all get up-or-down votes; the question is, does that include regulatory agency appointments?
(THOMAS is at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php )
Can't we all just let Wall Street commit fraud without recourse?
Harry Reid is a moron. But Mary Jo White's nomination will be the real news story of 2013, even though the media will barely cover it. Her claim to fame is prosecuting Gotti and the Blind Sheik, but nearly as telling is the fact that Bush Jr. appointed her to investigate Marc Rich. Talk about priorities! If ever there was a "follow the money" story this will be it.
Someone during the confirmation process needs to grill Ms. White over her recent activities defending Wall Street executives. Who are we hiring: the "tough" prosecuter or yet another Wall Street defender?
I don't see that as disqualifying: she will know all the tricks they employ in their defense, no?
Republicans gutting agencies they hate is nothing new, but their shameless attempt to do an end run around the law that created the CFPB is unprecedented.
A big reason republicans get nothing done is their obsession with re-fighting battles they already lost.
Harry Reid (Charlie Brown): You're not going to abuse the filibuster are you? (You're not going to pull the football away again are you?)
Mitch McDonnell (Lucy): Of course not Harry (Of course not Charlie).
Shameless Republicans. Laws passed by the majority don't count unless Republicans like them. Why don't people recognize them for the hostage-takers that they are?
GOP channels Reagan (Nancy):
"Just say No!"
Rush Limbaugh screeched about it this morning. Though he didn't call it improper, he called it unconstitutional (which it is) and called for Obama to be impeached.
From the Alliance for Justice "Justice Watch" Blog:
The issue is arcane, but the consequences are huge. It’s a case study of how the Senate Republican minority’s abuse of the filibuster to block appointees, and the failure to fill vacancies on what is often described as the nation’s second highest court combined to produce potentially disastrous consequences.
Hundreds of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could be invalidatedand the entire agency effectively shut down if a ruling by three Republican appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
READ THE FULL POST HERE: http://is.gd/mTQ6Iv
Alliance for Justice
Washington DC
Well.....no...not really...no.....
I suppose it is possible but I think that might be a stretch at this point, it's hard to say what the actual fallout will be so I'm not sure we know what direction this will go. That may be legally possible but I like to believe that it will not go that far. Sadly it might, but that doesn't seem likely to me.
We'll have to see
Hence...the risk of doing things in an unsound and possibly unconstitutional manner can result in the situation liberals find themselves in...*Tsk -Tsk* And now the Second amendment overreach and let's not forget the shoving of Hussein's Socialized medicine down an Unwilling Population's collective throat. Sooner or later this failures backdoor dealings HAD to catch up with him.
I don't care what it is, if it happens in Washington you can with relative assurance say that BOTH sides have done exactly the same thing at some time or other. This from the AP:
Bull@!$%# don
This "both sides do it" nonsense is more destructive thinking than anything else. Only one side is doing it to excess. Only one side is purposely destroying our economy. Only one side abused the filibuster, stands for deregulation, grants corporations free reign to pollute and destroy the environment, deny global climate change. Finding one or two instances where the "other" has done it in no way makes them equal or the same. Only one side is detrimental to democracy...THE TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS.
Look up the 2 santa claus theory to see their methods. Maybe take the time to go read driftglass.com on the subject as he explains it in detail
The political aspects of this is of little importance. Yes this was for politics however because of the way this ruling has happened it has legitimacy. We all know this was politically motivated not problem solving but regardless the ruling says they were right.
I would be far more concerned with the impact of this decision. Jay Carney said it right in my opinion, this really came out of left field and is potentially unprecidented. The reason this is so huge is that according to this ruling Obama and a lot presidents have done this. If this ruling is upheld then presidents have been doing this illegally for years. So much so that the adminstration obviously thought this was within their power because so many other presidents have done it and not been challenged.
It appears that this court has said that the only time that a recess appointment can be made is in the recess between Congress' spring-fall sessions and only for vacancies that occur during that break.
Look, I didn't report it, the AP did. Are you saying that keeping the Senate open has only been done once or twice and many times by the Republicans? Then make your case.
If you say one side does it to the excess, then you are saying it is okay to do once or twice but the third time makes it wrong? Why is that?
Both sides do the exact same thing. Yes, each side does some more than others but that matters very little. That's like saying he hit me many times but I only hit him twice...unfair.
Scoundrels love the both sides do it defense because they get to get their adversaries punished by the refs while minimizing the blowback when they get caught with their arms full shoulder into the cookie jar. It baffles me why the VSPs in the beltway let them get away with it when school principals stopped taking 'they did it too' as an excuse back in... umm... forever.
Miracle, I think it is wrong that either sides do gimmicks like this for political reasons. I also find just as egregious those who complain about the other side doing something they have done as well. Hope that clears things up.
Dirty Harry never was going to let anything substantive happen with the way the senate works. He's never been more than a cardboard-cutout placeholder for a sock puppet.
It seems to me that the Republicans would be right to block any nomination to this bureau until its charter is revisited since it is the only oversight of its affairs that the congress has. The CFPB status is abusive of the checks and balances procedure and is wrong.
The bureau sets its own budget and is a department of the Treasury but is not responsible to the secretary. Its head must however have to report to someone and that someone must be the president behind everyone's back.
The CFPB is potentially an ideal political weapon that the White House can deploy without let and hindrance in pursuit of goals that it knows congress might frustrate in the normal course of political tussle.
Obama isn't going to be president for ever. If the Democrats really believe their own propaganda that the GOP is 100% in Wall Street's pocket, does Benen really think it wise to leave the powers of the CFPB at the disposal of a future Republican White House?
I suspect that what Benen really thinks is that Republican presidents could be counted on not to abuse the bureau's remit but that it would always be a vehicle for the achievement of liberal policy aims when Democrats are in power.
Political activists always want a free hand to do what they want regardless of the opposition and democracy exists, however messily, to frustrate that authoritarian tendancy.
The GOP is right on this one whatever Cordray's credentials.