Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEmployees? Consumers? Feh!
Employees? Consumers? Feh!
Harold Meyerson
The Republican war on the NLRB and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Should the Supreme Court uphold it, last Fridays decision by three Reagan-appointees to the D.C. Circuit Appellate Court appears at first glance to rejigger the balance of power between Congress and the president. The appellate justices struck down three recess appointments that President Obama had made to the five-member National Labor Relations Board during the break between the 2011 and 2012 sessions of Congress partly on the grounds that Congress wasnt formally in recess, since one and sometimes two Republicans showed up to nominally keep it in session for the sole reason of denying Obama the right to recess appointments. Two of the three justices went further, ruling that the president cant really make recess appointments at all.
Its not that Obama has made a lot of recess appointments. Hes only made 32compared to the 171 made by George W. Bush; one of Bushs appointees was John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador. Presidents have been making recess appointments since the mid-19th century, but this is the first time that the courts have objected. Certainly, the three judges on the D.C. appellate court voiced no such opinions when Bush was president.
The real issue here is who Obama appointed, and to what agencies. The recess appointments he made in the 2011-2012 break were to the NLRB (two Democrats, one Republican) and the directorship of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray). Obama had sent these nominations to the Hill, but invoking the 60-vote supermajority rule, Republicans refused to consider them. They made clear that their problem with Cordray wasnt Cordray; it was that they opposed the very existence of the Bureau, which had been created as part of Dodd-Frank in 2010. The idea of an agency that represented financial consumers solelyas opposed to other agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Controller of the Currencystruck them as a terrible idea. They proposed to amend the act by reconstituting the bureau as an agency, with multiple board members, that represented banks interests as well as their consumers....But Democrats still controlled the Senate in 2011-12, and Obama the White House, so the Republicans had no chance of passing legislation that would reduce the new agency to impotence. However, Dodd-Frank did stipulate that unless the agency had a director, it couldnt write rules for banks treatment of consumers, so Senate Republicans filibustered against Cordrays confirmation.
<...>
What congressional Republicans have done, then, is used their power in the Senate minority not just to deny the presidents appointments, though they had majority support. They have blocked these particular appointments because they effectively repeal the legal authority of these two agencies to do anything. Theyve found a way to repeal some or all of major, foundational lawsthe 1935 National Labor Relations Act and 2010s Dodd-Frank financial reform billthat empower employees in their workplaces and bank customers, without actually having the votes to repeal the laws. Indeed, this is repeal on the sly, since the laws are still on the books, but largely unenforceable.
- more -
http://prospect.org/article/employees-consumers-feh
Harold Meyerson
The Republican war on the NLRB and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Should the Supreme Court uphold it, last Fridays decision by three Reagan-appointees to the D.C. Circuit Appellate Court appears at first glance to rejigger the balance of power between Congress and the president. The appellate justices struck down three recess appointments that President Obama had made to the five-member National Labor Relations Board during the break between the 2011 and 2012 sessions of Congress partly on the grounds that Congress wasnt formally in recess, since one and sometimes two Republicans showed up to nominally keep it in session for the sole reason of denying Obama the right to recess appointments. Two of the three justices went further, ruling that the president cant really make recess appointments at all.
Its not that Obama has made a lot of recess appointments. Hes only made 32compared to the 171 made by George W. Bush; one of Bushs appointees was John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador. Presidents have been making recess appointments since the mid-19th century, but this is the first time that the courts have objected. Certainly, the three judges on the D.C. appellate court voiced no such opinions when Bush was president.
The real issue here is who Obama appointed, and to what agencies. The recess appointments he made in the 2011-2012 break were to the NLRB (two Democrats, one Republican) and the directorship of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray). Obama had sent these nominations to the Hill, but invoking the 60-vote supermajority rule, Republicans refused to consider them. They made clear that their problem with Cordray wasnt Cordray; it was that they opposed the very existence of the Bureau, which had been created as part of Dodd-Frank in 2010. The idea of an agency that represented financial consumers solelyas opposed to other agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Controller of the Currencystruck them as a terrible idea. They proposed to amend the act by reconstituting the bureau as an agency, with multiple board members, that represented banks interests as well as their consumers....But Democrats still controlled the Senate in 2011-12, and Obama the White House, so the Republicans had no chance of passing legislation that would reduce the new agency to impotence. However, Dodd-Frank did stipulate that unless the agency had a director, it couldnt write rules for banks treatment of consumers, so Senate Republicans filibustered against Cordrays confirmation.
<...>
What congressional Republicans have done, then, is used their power in the Senate minority not just to deny the presidents appointments, though they had majority support. They have blocked these particular appointments because they effectively repeal the legal authority of these two agencies to do anything. Theyve found a way to repeal some or all of major, foundational lawsthe 1935 National Labor Relations Act and 2010s Dodd-Frank financial reform billthat empower employees in their workplaces and bank customers, without actually having the votes to repeal the laws. Indeed, this is repeal on the sly, since the laws are still on the books, but largely unenforceable.
- more -
http://prospect.org/article/employees-consumers-feh
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 578 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Employees? Consumers? Feh! (Original Post)
ProSense
Jan 2013
OP
ProSense
(116,464 posts)1. Kick for
the Republican war on labor and consumer rights.
ananda
(28,836 posts)2. The people have to really want unions.
When people decide to organize in a meaningful and persistent way, only then will regression stop and progress begin again.