President To Just Go Ahead And Appoint Cordray As Financial Protection Chief

It’s been nearly six months since President Obama picked former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as his nominee to head the recently created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But with Senate Republicans continuing to block a vote on Cordray’s appointment, the President has decided to go ahead and use his authority to fill the position by making a recess appointment.

“Today the President will appoint Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” writes White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. “[Republicans] refused to let the Senate go forward with an up or down vote. It’s not because Republicans think Cordray isn’t qualified for the job, they simply believe that the American public doesn’t need a watchdog at all. Well, we disagree.

“And we can’t wait for Republicans in the Senate to act. Now, you might hear some folks across the aisle criticize this ‘recess appointment.’ It’s probably the same folks who don’t think we need a tough consumer watchdog in the first place. Those critics might tell you that Wall Street should write their own rules. Or you might hear them say the American people are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves. Again, we disagree with those critics.”

Pfeiffer also attempts to preempt opponents’ arguments that Senators are still technically in session, thus preventing the President from making a recess appointment.

“The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks,” he writes. “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.”

Consumers Union’s senior policy counsel Pamela Banks praises the President’s decision to end the stalemate. “Congress created the CFPB to be a watchdog for consumers, and it has to have a director to put its full powers to work,” she writes. “This consumer watchdog has been muzzled by the political process for way too long. This move is the right move for consumers. We need someone to stand up to protect people from abuses by big banks and shady lenders. Richard Cordray is a good choice with support by people on both sides of the political aisle, and it’s time to let him get to work. Today’s appointment means the CFPB finally will be able to protect consumers from unscrupulous lenders, financial scams and other rip-offs.”

Early in December, after Republican Senators made it clear they were going to stymie the appointment process, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, Brian Deese, told Consumerist that the White House would pursue all available options in making sure the CFPB leadership position was filled in a prompt manner.

“Our hope is that those Republicans that stood in the way of Richard Cordray being nominated will reassess that position,” he said at the time. “And we’re not gonna let up in taking the case to the American people, that they [Republicans] are not in the right place, they are not where consumers are on this issue and frankly they’re not where the financial system is either.”

America’s Consumer Watchdog [WhiteHouse.gov]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Cat says:

    STFU, Republicans. You can’t complain about this, Bush used this same tactic regularly.

    • Costner says:

      That doesn’t mean they can’t complain about it… because they will. They are all hypocrites and they routinely complain about things they themselves have done in the past.

      Remember all the whining they did over raising the debt ceiling? Funny how they never seemed to care when they were raising it something like 11 times under Bush.

      How abou when they were complaining about Democrats using the fillibuster and how they should allow President Bush’s appointees to get an “up or down vote”? Yea… the shoe is on the other foot now so suddently they have done a complete 180.

      Idiots.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        They’re all hypocrites and it’s all cyclical. The cycles are just getting shorter and the public is losing their short term memory. The fillbuster, deficit spending, recess appointments, earmarks, etc. are only bad when the other party is doing it.

        It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrats were criticizing Republicans for racking up debt on Bush’s “Chinese Credit Card” and demanding PAYGO. They even mocked Cheney for his “deficits don’t matter” quote. Now both parties have done a complete 180.

      • atthec44 says:

        Remember when Presidential Candidate Obama said that “raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible, it’s unpatriotic”?

        Remember when President Obama said that “raising the debt ceiling is necessary”?

        The hypocrisy runs both ways.

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          Yes, it was actually a very powerful and moving speech that he made as a Senator. It was a “that man might be President some day” kind of speech.

          The full text of it is here:

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp

        • Costner says:

          Yes the hypocrisy does go both ways… which is why I said “[t]hey are all hypocrites”. Notice I didn’t say Republicans are all hypocrites nor did I say Democrats are all hypocrites. I fully understand politicians are hypocrites, however in this case the whining from the right is being discussed so we have focused upon them.

          • atthec44 says:

            If you re-read the original comment from CAT, then re-read your response to that original comment from CAT…

            It’s not too much of a stretch to assume that your use of the words “they” and “idiots” meant Republicans.

    • alSeen says:

      No he didn’t. He did recess appointments, but he did not appoint someone while congress was still in session. Legally, congress is still in session.

      • xanxer says:

        Legally, the President can order an adjournment.

      • dolemite says:

        That’s probably because the dems didn’t stoop to such disgusting tactics to prevent our government from moving forward like this obstructionist government created by Republicans with the sole purpose of undermining Obama, despite consequences for you know…the country they are *supposed* to be leading.

      • Cat says:

        the President has decided to go ahead and use his authority to fill the position by making a recess appointment.

        Congress is NOT in session: The 2012 congressional calendar is here:
        http://hobnobblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012_CongressionalCalendar_WEB.pdf

        NOTE: A new Congress begins at noon January 3 of each odd-numbered year following a general election, unless it designates a different day by law.

        • TuxthePenguin says:

          The Senate has been holding pro forma sessions to prevent this. Same tactic Reid did against Bush.

          The odd thing here is that the director doesn’t get most of his powers unless confirmed by the Senate… its written into the law. It’ll be interesting to see how that works.

    • MonkeyMonk says:

      That didn’t stop Republicans from crying foul over the use of a Democratic filibuster (remember the whole “nuclear option” fiasco?) even though Republican filibusters outnumber Democrat filibusters by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

    • atthec44 says:

      But he did campaign against “politics as usual in Washington”. This seems like politics as usual.

    • rlmiller007 says:

      Doesn’t matter who does it pr not. It’s still wrong. Where is the will of the people? You liberals always miss the point. This should be done at the state level. Period. Washington D.C. is full of people with good intentions that have very bad consequences. If I give my son $50 and tell him it has to last a week and in two days he’s back why would I give him more? The point is D.C. is out of control and King Obama is the worst of them all.

      • Tim says:

        “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.” (U.S. Constitution, article 2, section 2, clause 3)

        • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

          “But, the Constitution only means something when it works for US!!!”–TEA Party

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          I think the issue is that the Senate technically never went into recess.

          • Stickdude says:

            The issue is that the vacancy didn’t happen while Congress was in recess – as mandated by a clear reading of the text.

            If the Secretary of Defense were to keel over this afternoon, Obama would absolutely be within his Constitutional authority to appoint a new SecDef this evening without Senate approval – because the vacancy happened while Congress was in recess (and having a SecDef in office is critical to government continuity).

            Using this article as way to get around the Senate’s stated authority to confirm appointments is clearly unconstitutional – and yes, it’s abused by both parties.

          • kobresia says:

            Yeah, no.

            This is just another shenanigan, it’s like going on lunch break at work but “technically” not clocking-out.

            It’s this kind of obstinate, foolish behavior that has made me lose all respect for the US Congress. Yeah, I understand that there’s going to be some playing politics and posturing, but leaving for a few weeks and claiming they’re actually still in session is false. Hey, if they are still in session, then they should convene this week to vote this guy up or down. Oh wait, they can’t because they’re all gone? Mmmhmmm.

  2. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    I’m not sure how to feel about this… this is good news, right? I mean, subverting the Republican attempt at stonewalling this guy’s appointment?

  3. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    If you’re going to do a recess appointment, why not do the person you wanted in the position in the first place.

    Elizabeth Warren!

    • blogger X says:

      AMEN!

    • Coffee says:

      Thank you…I have no idea why she isn’t in this position.

    • Veeber says:

      She’s no longer interested. I think she’s running for Scott Brown’s Senate seat.

    • PLATTWORX says:

      Yes, for the reasons below AND the fact that the President does not nominate one individual for a post and then recess appoint someone else. Not how it works. He would have had to withdraw his monination of Cordray, nominate Warren again (if she was interested and she isn’t) and then allow the Congress time to vote on Warren before he could recess appoint her if they refused to vote.

      You can’t switch horses in the middle of the race.

  4. Emperor Norton I says:

    Barry finally got some balls.
    Way too late though!

  5. Coffee says:

    When you obstruct everything, you undermine the fundamental principles of your party. You’re no longer a Republican; you’re an obstructionist, plain and simple. We need more bipartisanship, badly, but until both sides are willing to compromise (and please don’t tell me the passing of the payroll tax extension was compromise; it was a party caving to public outcry and realizing that to not pass the extension would be to commit political suicide in November), moves like this will be the only way to get anything done.

    How I pine for a system with more than two significant political parties.

    • Cat says:

      How I pine for a system with more than two significant political parties.

      THIS. So much THIS. It isn’t supposed to be a 2 party system. I’ve argued this point with history professors who should know better.

    • Duffin (Ain't This Kitty Cute?) says:

      I agree. I’ve always felt that if we indeed are going to have parties in our government, we need more than two. It lessens the chance of one party being able to just hold things up they don’t like and requires more working between party lines. Look at most other countries that have parties. Most of them have at least three major parties.

      • mommiest says:

        The ones with three major parties are parliamentary systems, no? I think there is something about that system that makes coalition governments, and thus third (or more) parties more likely to attract supporters.

        Sigh. I don’t think our founders saw this particular problem coming, although I think Washington was opposed to a 2-party system.

        • Coffee says:

          The problem is that the two-party system existed in the form of the federalists and anti-federalists from the inception of our government. They changed and were replaced by other names over time, but that duality always existed. In other countries, that’s just not the case, and no, three parties and a parliamentary system are not the standard when a bi-partisan system doesn’t exist. Check out how many parties are in Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel

          When shit needs to get done, parties form alliances, and if one is being particularly obstinate, the others work against it. It’s like fucking survivor over there.

          • chargernj says:

            The nice side effect is that it encourages legislators vote on issues instead of along party lines. Temporary alliances are common in parliamentary politics.

          • ARP says:

            It also makes it more difficult for big business to influence elections, since they now have to buy the votes of multiple parties to get what they want. The do that now to a certain extent, but can fund the D’s or R’s heavily and not bother with the other.

          • mommiest says:

            Israel’s system of proportional representation pretty much guarantees more than two parties. Since you’ve done some thinking about it, do you know of any parliamentary systems with only two parties?

            I can’t help thinking that the usual rules (which allow for no-confidence votes and give two minority parties the chance to form coalition governments) give voters the sense that, even if they don’t vote for a major party, there’s a pretty good chance their candidates will get to govern.

    • ARP says:

      The problem is that we have a self adjusting system to keep two parties. If libertarians draw some votes away from the R candidate, the Democrat wins that seat. The next election, those people will probably follow vote R, to prevent a repeat and to select “the lesser of two evils” Same with any Democrat v. green party candidate. Even if the opposite ends of the political spectrum pull some votes away, those people will inevitably return to R or D, since again, lesser of two evils.

      • Coffee says:

        Yeah…exhibits A & B: Ross Perot and Ralph Nader costing Bush and Gore presidential elections, at least in theory. The fact that the self-correcting exists doesn’t make it any less frustrating, though.

      • Cat says:

        What is needed is a third party that can get more than a small percentage of the vote.

      • LanMan04 says:

        Which is why we need Instant-Runoff voting.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

        Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as preferential voting, the alternative vote and ranked choice voting, is a voting system used to elect one winner. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their ballots are counted as one vote for their first choice candidate. If a candidate secures a majority of votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. A new round of counting takes place, with each ballot counted as one vote for the advancing candidate who is ranked highest on that ballot. This process continues until the winning candidate receives a majority of the vote against the remaining candidates.

  6. alSeen says:

    Obama is scared he will be a one term president so he’s trying to get as much through as he can. Otherwise he wouldn’t do this. Dems have used the same tactic of “pro forma” sessions to block recess appointments. Once Obama does this, either he will be slapped down, or it will be open season.

    • Marlin says:

      “Dems have used the same tactic”

      When was that?

    • dolemite says:

      I don’t think he’s scared of that. I think Obama has worked more in his first 3 years than Bush did in 8 years. Bush took over 1000 vacation days during his presidency, compared to Obama’s current 61. Have you seen these Republican candidates? It’s like the 8 stooges (or whatever they are down to now…they aren’t worth keeping track of, frankly).

      • Bsamm09 says:

        Bush was on vacation for almost 3 years out of the 8 he was in office?

        I’d love to see a reference for that. I couldn’t find anything that had him over 100.

      • alSeen says:

        If you are going to compare the vacation days, you need to use the numbers for the same time period. Bush had something like 180 in his first 3 years. More than Obama, yes, but comparing 8 years to 3 is disingenuous.

        • dolemite says:

          Still 3x more in the same period, and it’s interesting Fox and cronies have tried to use this number against Obama.

          • alSeen says:

            I think it’s silly to make a big deal about vacation days. The President is always working, no matter where he is.

          • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

            It just seems like a ridiculous critique, regardless of whose making it. Bush got a lot of flak regarding his vacations and was mercilessly mocked for his time at the “ranch”. I don’t recall the subject of Presidential vacations every coming up before Bush was elected.

            Prior to that, I don’t think anyone ever thought twice about trips to Camp David or Martha’s Vineyard. When I was a kid, we used to visit my cousins when President Carter came to their town to fly fish in Central PA. I actually got to meet him back in 1977 or 1978, so in a way, I’m a big fan of Presidential vacations.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        Do you have a citation for those numbers?

        I’m looking at an article from August that also quotes 61 days for Obama. Did he not take any time off for Thanksgiving or Christmas?

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml

        I’ve had a visceral disgust for Bush since the day the day of the Supreme Court ruling but have always though obsessing about vacation days for the President is absolutely ludicrous. It’s an incredibly stressful job (they always go grey within a year of being elected) and it’s not like they’re going incommunicado when at Camp David.

    • ARP says:

      Agreed. Regardless of your political affiliation, this was a carefully timed to move to steal some spotlight from the Iowa Caucus and get some “looking out for the middle class” cred. It’s too bad he hasn’t done more and we have to wait until he’s in campaign mode to actually get stuff done.

      • ScottCh says:

        I call rubbish. What they did to Elizabeth Warren was a disgrace, and Cordray was twisting in the wind long enough. Everyone pays when institutionalized financial swindles defraud people out of their savings. Dodd-Frank was signed into law. It’s the Senate’s job to implement that law. If they were doing the jobs they swore to do instead of playing shenanigans, the president would not have to follow them into shenanigan-land to make them keep their own promises to us, the people they are supposed to be representing.

      • rooben says:

        he didn’t have to steal anything from the Iowa caucus. they were giving it away…Republicans want anyone-but-Romney, but they keep ending up with the extremes who will never win a general election.

        Just google “Santorum” to see why he can’t win.

  7. xanxer says:

    This kind of political infighting is why the founding fathers were against party politics.

  8. kataisa says:

    Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same monster–both are no good for the American people. End the endless Democrat-Republican stalemates and vote third party if you want to see real change in this country.

    • Greg Ohio says:

      Take a look at how countries with more than 2 major parties function, such as Canada, Britain, and Israel. All three are governed by right-wing coalitions after splitting up the liberal/moderate vote. All three see declining personal freedom.

      • captadam says:

        And what’s a coalition government? Essentially a two-party system. It’s just that one of the “parties” is actually a collection of parties.

        I only take seriously those who point to structural flaws in our system if those people have sincerely gotten involved in the existing partisan system.

      • Kuri says:

        I love how people who have never been near a system of government seem to think they know all the intimate details of how it works.

    • speaky2k says:

      This is why I will be voting for Scott Adams for President.
      http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/my_presidential_campaign_update/
      And while I know he has no chance on winning (due mostly to the rules of requirements to be President), I am not feeling like I am throwing my vote away, I am just using it for the best candidate…. ie, ANYONE ELSE.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        I haven’t missed an election since I started voting in 1988. I’ve come to the decision that I’m no longer voting for the candidate that I dislike the least and will pick the one who I actually support or just leave that section of the ballot blank.

        I don’t see myself voting for Obama or Romney this go around.

    • captadam says:

      That sounds good and all. But it’s incredible naive.

      Democrats and Republicans ARE the people. Rather than get silly and stomp your feet and demand a third party (and then have to go through all the formulaic crap that’s required of that, and then try to keep your coalition together, and then ultimately fail), how about you get involved in the parties that currently exist?

      Get involved at the precinct level. Organize like-minded individuals. Run for party leadership positions. Run for seats in local government.

      If you can’t organize some people to influence the existing party structure, then you sure as hell can’t organize an entirely new structure and have any success.

      Of course, it’s easier to complain than to do something about it.

  9. scouts honor says:

    It’s about time he showed some spine. Hopefully, this isn’t a one time event.

  10. Chief CL says:

    I don’t care about the repubs here… or the dems… or Obama appointing someone while congress is still in session.

    Fact is, WE DON’T NEED THE “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”… just another way for the government to grow, and another place for our tax dollars to be spent.

    Am I really the only one who thinks this?

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Bank of America’s track record seems to indicate otherwise…

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        There are already bureaus that regulate banks and banking. Look how well that has worked.

        • prizgrizbiz says:

          It’s a way of being anti-business with using the hammer of an ‘independent’ agency.

        • McRib wants to know if you've been saved by the Holy Clown says:

          That’s a bit of a logical fallacy. Just because things worked poorly with something, does not imply things would have worked better without it.

          Who’s to say that without regulation banks wouldn’t simply forclose on debtors children and then sell them into slavery, and merely ‘whoops we forgot slavery was illegal’ afterwords?

    • alSeen says:

      You aren’t the only one. There are lots of people who see this as just more bureaucratic nonsense.

    • Costner says:

      No – pretty much every Republican in Washington feels the same way. Obviously Wall Street and Washington politicians have done such a bang-up job of protecting consumers over the past few years and thankfully all of those protections have had a direct benefit towards consumers at the expense of financial institutions right?

      Oh wait.

      We have tried the path of self-regulation. It doesn’t work. It contributed to massive finanicial collapse and a prolonged period of stagflation. Maybe it would be a good idea to enact some common sense reforms that would not only protect the consumer, but would restrict what the banks and financial institutions can do which in turn will make them stronger and less likely to suffer during a future economic downturn due to limited exposure and increased risk control.

      Ya think?

      • rlmiller007 says:

        Yes, but like most liberals you miss the point. This should be done on the state level. period. Unless you feel you have control in D.C. and we both know you don’t.

        • OtakuboyT says:

          So the crooks will go to the state with the weakest regulations.

        • BigDave says:

          Ahem, the Commerce Clause would beg to differ. And all those poor Southern Tea Party states would let corporations screw over their citizens [like they've done for decades]

        • Costner says:

          I see you like to toss around that “liberal” label to anyone who seems to think the CPB is a good idea, so it really pains me to tell you that I’m not a liberal. Thus, your assumptions are incorrect and your statements are propped up against a logical fallacy.

          You might think controlling these things at the state level is a great idea, but unfortunately when financial transactions occur across state lines we need to defer to the federal government because state laws won’t take effect in other states. Thus Bank of America can charge 99% APR on a credit card even if a state has usury laws limiting the maximum APR to 30% provided the card is originated in a state that doesn’t have usury laws. The SCOTUS deemed this perfectly legal due to The National Banking Act and in fact they also consider fees to be included… so if a state tries to regulate banking fees to protect consumers they can be slapped down and the bank can charge whatever they choose regardless of state laws.

          Besides that – have you noticed the states doing anything in terms of projecting consumers? No… in fact since states compete against one another for business, some have actually watered down their state laws in order to attract financial services companies. Read up on usury laws and legislative changes in the 1980s within the state of South Dakota and what they did to attract Citibank. Do you ever wonder why a company like First Premier has a credit card with 79.9%APR and is based in South Dakota? It is because South Dakota allows credit card companies to do whatever they choose in order to keep them in the state.

          So history tells us states won’t protect consumers and are much more interested in projecting businesses in order to attract and create jobs. You complain about not having control in D.C and yet you somehow feel you might have control at the state level? Good luck with that.

        • Solkanar512 says:

          Why not the county level or the city level or the street level? Why not have it down to the city block?

        • jason1111 says:

          The constitution gives the feds power to regulate interstate commerce. most commerce today is interstate.

        • Kuri says:

          Hey, if you want companies to be able to get away with metal shavings in cereal and beef that had a bladder burst open in it and not sanitized, be my guest.

        • Mephron says:

          Please stop drinking the Ron Paul Everything-At-State-Level Kool-Aid and start paying attention.

          The only way a state-level financial regulatory bureau would work would be for each state to have one, for each card company to have a separate issuing and processing bureau in each state, and for it to be illegal to use them out of state. This bureau, at the federal level, allows things to work in an interstate form, and that means you can use one credit card anywhere in the US, which puts it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

          Or do you not like the idea of being able to order from Amazon without three different cards for the Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Kansas centers, depending on where the order is being fulfilled? Because that’s what your ‘states only’ idea leads to.

    • Cat says:

      Republicans are actually fighting to have MORE people – a panel – instead of just one person in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

      So the party of “less government” is actually advocating “more government” in this case.

      • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

        They want a panel of people to cause gridlock and slow things down. A single person in charge could act a lot more freely, thus being a more powerful government entity. In this case, more people means less government.

        • ARP says:

          But they’re more genius than that:

          1) Slow things down/prevent things from getting done.
          2) Agency fails to protect consumers
          3) Bad things happen
          4) R’s blame the government for being dysfunctional and says they should regulate themselves.
          5) Repeat
          6) Profit

    • Marlin says:

      yep free market works fine. Lets cut regulations more as the track records of banks and other large corps has been great.

    • debjwhe says:

      I agree. Totally.

    • Markitect says:

      I agree. We don’t need another bureau(cracy).

  11. darcmosch says:

    He looks so cute in this picture. I just want to pinch his cheeks!

  12. rlmiller007 says:

    Way to go Obama. We know how well our federal government solves problems I’m sure the new office won’t be a waste of taxes, overspend, or overstep it’s authority. Seriously, this should be done at the state level.. What a buffoon.

    • PunditGuy says:

      Of course it shouldn’t. You get a race to the regulation bottom, which is why your credit cards are from banks located in SD or DE.

    • ohiomensch says:

      Cordray actually did this at the State Level as Attorney General from Ohio. That is probably why he got tapped for the job in the first place.

  13. TuxthePenguin says:

    He will remain head for the next session of Congress – basically the end of this year. Wouldn’t that mean that if Obama loses the election next year, the new Republican president would get to appoint the successor?

  14. PLATTWORX says:

    I applaud Obama and I don’t always do that.

    The Republicans made it very clear they would never allow a vote on ANYONE to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even though they were part of the vote that got the agency created. It had nothing to do with Cordray or Warren. They didn’t want this agency watching out for consumers when it comes to banking, etc so if they didn’t ever vote on a head.. the agency could never really get to work.

    Congress should be required to vote on an appointment without X days. Simply saying “We don’t like the agency… so we’re just going to never vote and technically never go into recess so you can’t do a recess appointment” is shameful. Not thrilled with dems, but the Republicans were really playing dirty pool with this one.

    Obama was given no choice after all this time except find some avenue that allowed him to do the appointment without Congress. He has waited months for an up or down vote on Cordray. George W. Bush recess appointed a ton of people so the GOP needs to sit down and shutup on this one.

    You’d swear GW Bush never was President or had any hand in the mess we’re in according to Republican revisionist history. (eye roll)

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      Yet he is going to “recess appoint” someone when Congress is not in recess.

      Look, the Republicans have a fundamental problem with the way the agency is set up. They want more than just the head making decisions, they want to to answer to someone and they want to Congress to control the purse strings like every other agency.

      I hate to break it to you, but Obama is technically breaking the rules. I don’t see anyone really doing anything, but its going to set a nasty precedent. Although I do wonder why we even bother with appointments anymore… just wait until this “effective” recess and do what you want.

      Hell, we’re sliding more and more to a oligarchy every day… and neither party is going to stop it.

      • PLATTWORX says:

        Yes, but the Republicans are (for the first time ever for either party) refusing the put Congress in recess by gaveling in and out of session for no one just so Cordray can’t get placed and won’t vote. Listen, I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats but this is really underhanded. “We refuse to vote on your nominee EVER and we refuse to go into recess EVER” Really???

        The bill creating this agency AS IS (with one head) was voted on, passed and signed by the President. It did not say “run by a group of people” in the bill. If you wanted a committee running it, don’t vote to create an agency that has one head and then block the head from being appointed.

        I agree this is “gray” but the Constitution does not forbid the President from doing what he is doing today. I’d prefer a real recess… but…

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          “Yes, but the Republicans are (for the first time ever for either party) refusing the put Congress in recess by gaveling in and out of session for no one just so Cordray can’t get placed and won’t vote. “

          That’s not entirely true. The Democrats did exactly same thing at the end of the Bush administration.

      • darklighter says:

        If they had a fundamental problem with the way the agency is set up, then they should have addressed it when the legislation was voted on.

  15. ap0 says:

    Wasn’t one of his moves as AG to protect us all from the dangers of Four Loko (or at least the state of Ohio)?

    His title should be nanny-in-chief.

  16. atthec44 says:

    Cat said, ‚ÄúSTFU, Republicans. You can’t complain about this, Bush used this same tactic regularly.‚Äù

    To which you replied, ‚ÄúThat doesn’t mean they can’t complain about it… because they will. They are all hypocrites and they routinely complain about things they themselves have done in the past.

    Remember all the whining they did over raising the debt ceiling? Funny how they never seemed to care when they were raising it something like 11 times under Bush.

    How abou when they were complaining about Democrats using the fillibuster and how they should allow President Bush’s appointees to get an “up or down vote”? Yea… the shoe is on the other foot now so suddently they have done a complete 180.

    Idiots.”

    I think you can certainly understand why some people would interpet your use of the words ‚Äúthey‚Äù and “idiots” to mean Republicans.

  17. One-Eyed Jack says:

    We are all loyal Consumerist readers. Why can’t we be named the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief? Collectively, of course. We’ll just hash out all the issues here in the comments section and come to a legally binding consensus. Who’s with me?

  18. Solkanar512 says:

    Abolish the Senate. It’s nuts that these appointments under any president can’t get a vote, and the Senate is one of the most undemocratic bodies of government in the world. Yes, let’s a few hundred thousand people the same representation as a few hundred million. Brilliant.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      And yet there is this other chamber across the building that aims to have a more proportional representative of the citizens… the Senate is to be the representatives of the states, not the people. Originally they were not even directly elected (and might be one of the larger mistakes we’ve made).

      At the rate we’re going, the Senate is largely becoming just a stumbling block for legislation. Which, honestly, I think is a good thing. I prefer fewer laws and longer fights for those laws that get through. Its not like they don’t have enough time sitting around wondering what they can legislate next…

    • dush says:

      Yeah just do away with the Constitutional Republic and let Obama reign as KING!!

  19. golddog says:

    Won’t this appointment interfere with his role of Kenneth on 30 Rock? I guess they’ve already finished taping for the upcoming season…

    • nuggetboy says:

      Argh! You beat me to it. And yours was much better.

      • golddog says:

        So it’s not just me then? Thank God.

        Every time I see a picture of this guy on Consumerist, and especially relevant to this particular post given the comments, all I hear in my head is “I don’t vote Republican or Democrat. Choosing is a sin, so I always just write in the Lord’s name!”

  20. nuggetboy says:

    Richard Cordray looks a lot like Kenneth from 30 Rock. Just sayin’.

  21. dush says:

    Ugh, this bureau should not be under the Fed.

  22. Stickdude says:

    “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.” (U.S. Constitution, article 2, section 2, clause 3)

    “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” (U.S. Constitution, article 2, section 2, clause 3)

    One of the above is from the Constitution as written. The other is from the Constitution as practiced by both parties. Does anyone see the difference between the two and why it’s significant?

  23. azmountaintroll says:

    You realize that according to the law establishing the Consumer Finance Protection Agency, Mr. Cordray is purely a figurehead until the Senate votes to confirm him? In exchange for the opportunity to stage a re-election publicity stunt, President Obama has effectively ended the Senate’s Advise and Consent role. Why should a President bother even sending an appointment to the Senate, when all he has to do is wait for an adjournment and then put in whomever he pleases? Hope it was worth it…

    • Stickdude says:

      President Obama has effectively ended the Senate’s Advise and Consent role.

      I’d actually argue that it’s been Senators (on both sides of the aisle) who have done that by refusing to hold up-or-down votes on nominees.

      To my knowledge, the Constitution doesn’t specify what should happen when the Senate flat-out abdicates its responsibility to vote on those nominees.

  24. ganon446 says:

    And with this move this new dept that looks into businesses for their accountability has lost all creditability.

  25. DragonThermo says:

    Yet another Czar by Obama. I think Obama has appointed almost 50 Czars, all or many of whom have been appointed without the consultation or approval of Congress.

    Just like the CARD act that you all loved until the repercussions bit you on the arse and made banking and credit more difficult and expensive for you, this new Czar and new bureaucracy will increase the burden on businesses and make banking and credit more challenging and expensive for you.

  26. ELC says:

    So let’s see if I get this – the Democrats can do this all day to stop Constitutional appointments like judges, etc that Republican presentidents make, but Republicans can’t do this to stop new government agencies from coming in to being that have dubious necessity? That sounds about right. Democrats – kings of the double standard.

  27. Psychotronic says:

    The new Financial Protection Chief is Kenneth the page from 30 Rock?