Could the President be planning a recess appointment when the

[MineralMan]

next Congress has its first recess? By positioning Warren as he is doing, he could easily do that, and she'd already be in place, ready to go. She'd have at least a year as the Director to spread her wings and demonstrate her obvious capabilities.

Seems like a smart move, especially if the Senate would be even more unlikely to confirm her after the election.

What do you think?

[Beetwasher]

1. Nahh, Better To Just Nominate Her, If Repubs Fillibuster, She Remains Interim Director Until They

Stop fillibustering.

That's why this appointment is so brilliant. She heads the agency NOW and UNTIL a permanent Director is confirmed. If he nominates her and Repubs fillibuster her, she's still Director. It's fucking brilliant.

[MineralMan]

2. That's certainly another possibility.

[ProSense]

3. I don't think so

Recess appointments are temporary, they end on the last day of the Congress in which they occur.

By giving Warren the interim position, she is better poisitioned to get the actual nomination.

Still, he could recess appoint her and then nominate her when the appointment expires.

[MineralMan]

5. That was my thinking too. By using the recess appointment,

she'd have time to prove her value, and could then be nominated to the following Congress.

[daleanime]

6. Nice idea, but the better she does....

the less they'll want her around.:banghead:

[chimpymustgo]

9. No. Here' a great explanation of this "move" by Ezra Klein:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/elizabeth_warren_contd.html?wprss=ezra-klein

Elizabeth Warren cont'd

Jon Cohn talked to some folks and came away with a generally optimistic take on Elizabeth Warren's interim nomination. Same goes for Matt Yglesias.

I'm still a bit more ambivalent. First, I mistrust decisions that can be easily spun in different ways to different audiences. Talking to the lefty blogger crowd, the administration can say that this shows the depth of their support for Warren, and in no way prevents a permanent nomination from occurring at some later date. The reality, as they've been explaining, is that the Senate isn't moving nominations right now and the Republicans are filibustering everything, so in the short-term, it was this or nothing.

And all that's true. On the other hand, it would also be easy to explain this to a member of the financial industry. The grass-roots pressure to appoint Warren was overwhelming. But this way, she's merely an adviser. She doesn't actually have the powers of the office. And after doing this, there's no way Senate Republicans will ever let her have the permanent spot. Warren's interim appointment makes the politics of a permanent appointment almost impossible.

And here's the thing: Both explanations are true! Republicans really are holding up the nomination process. In the short term, it really was this or nothing. Over the long-run, this really will make it impossible to imagine Republicans letting Warren through a confirmation process. Whether this is a good or bad outcome depends on your assessment of the counterfactuals, in which Obama either didn't appoint her at all or tried to appoint her and faced a fight he may or may not have won against the Republicans in Congress.

By Ezra Klein | September 16, 2010; 12:38 PM ET

[OregonBlue]

4. Either way works for me. Brilliant!!!

[s-cubed]

7. By not nominating her, she is free to speak out about the new agency.

if she were nominated, 1) she couldn't do anything to get the agency up and running
2)she couldn't talk about what she is/would do and 3) there would be a big distracting battle in the Senate.
It's a brilliant tactic on Obama's part.

[MineralMan]

8. That's a good point, too.

And for those who whine about Geithner being her boss, it's important to keep in mind who Geithner's boss is.