Aa
White House sees no impact of court ruling on finance protection agency
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/25/16701217-white-house-sees-no-impact-of-court-ruling-on-finance-protection-agency#comments
In the wake of a decision Friday by the court of appeals in Washington that President Barack Obama’s appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board was invalid, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was not affected by the court’s decision.
Obama’s appointments of both the NLRB members and of Corday were made on Jan. 4, 2012.
Related: Court rules against Obama appointments to labor board
A court of appeals has struck down Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray's appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and if today's ruling stands, it will eliminate a power that presidents of both parties have used for over a century. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Advertise | AdChoices
Republican senators had blocked a vote on Corday’s nomination in an attempt to get Obama to agree to changes in the structure of the CFPB, an agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which almost all Republican members of Congress had voted against.
In May 2011, Republican senators sent a letter to Obama saying that no nominee to head the CFPB would be confirmed unless he agreed to changes to the CFPB’s structure, including replacing the director with a board to oversee the agency, making it more akin to other federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission.
According to the White House, Obama’s appointments of the three NLRB members and of Cordray were “recess appointments” which he made when the Senate was not in session.
But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Friday the NLRB appointments “were constitutionally invalid” because the Senate was not in recess, as specified by the Constitution.
If a president were free “to decide when the Senate is in recess,” it “would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases,” the court said.
But Carney said the court’s ruling applied only to the litigant in the specific challenge before the court and had no wide implications.
“The decision that was put forward today had to do with one case, one company, one court” he told reporters. “It does not have any impact, as I think the NLRB has already put out, on their operations or functions or on the board itself. It has no bearing on Richard Cordray, and we, as I said, strongly disagree with it.”
Saying they were constitutionally invalid, a federal appeals court rejects President Obama's "recess" appointments to a labor board last year. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
It seems likely the Justice Department will appeal Friday’s decision to the Supreme Court.
"We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the Justice Department said in a one-line statement.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that the appeals court decision “now casts serious doubt on whether the President’s ‘recess’ appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the president announced at the same time, is constitutional.”
George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki, a critic of the CFPB, said Friday on a conference call sponsored by the Federalist Society that the Cordray appointment is no different from the NLRB appointments: “The assumption has been that they rise or fall together. If the NLRB appointments were invalid, then Cordray’s was.”
He said any regulation issued by the CFPB “would presumably now be invalid,” including its rules on mortgages and non-bank lenders.
In the wake of a decision Friday by the court of appeals in Washington that President Barack Obama’s appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board was invalid, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was not affected by the court’s decision.
Obama’s appointments of both the NLRB members and of Corday were made on Jan. 4, 2012.
Related: Court rules against Obama appointments to labor board
A court of appeals has struck down Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray's appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and if today's ruling stands, it will eliminate a power that presidents of both parties have used for over a century. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Advertise | AdChoices
Republican senators had blocked a vote on Corday’s nomination in an attempt to get Obama to agree to changes in the structure of the CFPB, an agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which almost all Republican members of Congress had voted against.
In May 2011, Republican senators sent a letter to Obama saying that no nominee to head the CFPB would be confirmed unless he agreed to changes to the CFPB’s structure, including replacing the director with a board to oversee the agency, making it more akin to other federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission.
According to the White House, Obama’s appointments of the three NLRB members and of Cordray were “recess appointments” which he made when the Senate was not in session.
But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Friday the NLRB appointments “were constitutionally invalid” because the Senate was not in recess, as specified by the Constitution.
If a president were free “to decide when the Senate is in recess,” it “would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases,” the court said.
But Carney said the court’s ruling applied only to the litigant in the specific challenge before the court and had no wide implications.
“The decision that was put forward today had to do with one case, one company, one court” he told reporters. “It does not have any impact, as I think the NLRB has already put out, on their operations or functions or on the board itself. It has no bearing on Richard Cordray, and we, as I said, strongly disagree with it.”
Saying they were constitutionally invalid, a federal appeals court rejects President Obama's "recess" appointments to a labor board last year. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
It seems likely the Justice Department will appeal Friday’s decision to the Supreme Court.
"We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the Justice Department said in a one-line statement.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that the appeals court decision “now casts serious doubt on whether the President’s ‘recess’ appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the president announced at the same time, is constitutional.”
George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki, a critic of the CFPB, said Friday on a conference call sponsored by the Federalist Society that the Cordray appointment is no different from the NLRB appointments: “The assumption has been that they rise or fall together. If the NLRB appointments were invalid, then Cordray’s was.”
He said any regulation issued by the CFPB “would presumably now be invalid,” including its rules on mortgages and non-bank lenders.
Sonny was a Republican so everyone should go to sleep happy tonight.
Sweet dreams folks.
Sweet dreams folks.
La da da da dee, La da da da da! Oh yes! The beat goes on! The beat goes on!
Thanks for that! I needed to laugh!
Thanks for that! I needed to laugh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umrp1tIBY8Q
LOL!!
LOL!!
Likewise Im sure. Good night.
I’d never PM Barb but I am embarrassed for you.
Woooooooo, look out RGlass....
I told you that they'd start believing that stuff... LOL
Really! Now copy it in context! But feel free to pm barb if that is your desire.Have at it! Do it to it!
And the beat goes on.
And the beat goes on.
"There you go again! Now go back and read what I wrote and you will notice where you have put YOU, was actually the word THEY and keep it in context please?
BUT if the shoe fits? Your problem not mine. I find it very curious that you singled that out to mean this board, Notice I said curious and not surprised."
Are you completely losing it? All I did was copy and paste you comment and asked if Barb was on vacation because you should be reprimanded for it.
BUT if the shoe fits? Your problem not mine. I find it very curious that you singled that out to mean this board, Notice I said curious and not surprised."
Are you completely losing it? All I did was copy and paste you comment and asked if Barb was on vacation because you should be reprimanded for it.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing, Teko.
There you go again! Now go back and read what I wrote and you will notice where you have put YOU, was actually the word THEY and keep it in context please?
BUT if the shoe fits? Your problem not mine. I find it very curious that you singled that out to mean this board, Notice I said curious and not surprised.
BUT if the shoe fits? Your problem not mine. I find it very curious that you singled that out to mean this board, Notice I said curious and not surprised.
Well here ya go. I got one for you! Reid and what he did with the filibuster crap. He must have had a koch brother armed car out in front of his house and got bought off. Just a couple of months back, he ws going on and on and on about how the filabuster needed to be changed to where you had to talk on the floor. HE made it a huge deal. HE thru his own party under the bus. See! he is a dem and he is a pissy one. So there ya go! Teko does not agree with a dem. better now?
We here at CE have gone thru this phase a time or two in the past. Didnt change anything then and it wont now. You can accept people the way they are or you can fight to the death complaining about it. But you are not changing anyone.Putting people down fort heir opinion because you dont like it wont fix it. My advice would be to just give your opinion and leave it there, but that is not nearly so much fun.Some one makes it personal and bam, off we go. Few of us have mastered not taking the bait. me included.
We here at CE have gone thru this phase a time or two in the past. Didnt change anything then and it wont now. You can accept people the way they are or you can fight to the death complaining about it. But you are not changing anyone.Putting people down fort heir opinion because you dont like it wont fix it. My advice would be to just give your opinion and leave it there, but that is not nearly so much fun.Some one makes it personal and bam, off we go. Few of us have mastered not taking the bait. me included.
It is always the republicans fault. Especially the first 2 years ofr the Presidents first term.... oh wait... no, It was the republicans fault when the dems had the senate. Wait wait wait... it was Bush's fault then.
" I see a bunch of sore losers that cannot stand the fact of having a black leader."
Is Barb on Vacation?
Is Barb on Vacation?
I don't know if you remember but until recently, though I am a Democrat, I was careful to specify who I was referring to when I wrote about the Republicans. My complaint was always with the tea party guys, the extreme element. I do respect conservatism to a degree and feel it is very important in Government.
I was accused often (not by you or sm) of being a lefty or a liberal and not seeing things fairly and it did bother me because it was said as an insult..
I remember before the election we actually had some good discussions and a little fun. I have never been interested in talking to ppl who think just like I do.
After the election things changed, my head was spinning with the negativity spewing forth (mostly from the guys but not entirely) and for awhile I still hoped we all could be friendly even though we disagreed (I didn't always disagree with you, btw)
Something happened, something really bitter and ugly and it has spread and I don't know if we will ever joke around again or even try to see eye to eye.
What turned me was seeing what I felt were relentless attacks on certain ppl , people who were civil and nice and who didn't demean others. It just didn't stop. At that point I decided enough..most of the time I don't like to fight so I ignore posts I feel are provocative. Sometimes I counter attack. Do I like being a b*tch? When it is in support of a friend or a value that i hold dear, I don't mind. Overall though, I am not a hater and take no pleasure in warring with you ng.
I was accused often (not by you or sm) of being a lefty or a liberal and not seeing things fairly and it did bother me because it was said as an insult..
I remember before the election we actually had some good discussions and a little fun. I have never been interested in talking to ppl who think just like I do.
After the election things changed, my head was spinning with the negativity spewing forth (mostly from the guys but not entirely) and for awhile I still hoped we all could be friendly even though we disagreed (I didn't always disagree with you, btw)
Something happened, something really bitter and ugly and it has spread and I don't know if we will ever joke around again or even try to see eye to eye.
What turned me was seeing what I felt were relentless attacks on certain ppl , people who were civil and nice and who didn't demean others. It just didn't stop. At that point I decided enough..most of the time I don't like to fight so I ignore posts I feel are provocative. Sometimes I counter attack. Do I like being a b*tch? When it is in support of a friend or a value that i hold dear, I don't mind. Overall though, I am not a hater and take no pleasure in warring with you ng.
Yeah, but curiously you seem to thrive here. I just cannot figure out why you would put yourself thru such torture? I mean, it is just a bunch of opinions now isnt it? Seems more like a need to win or put one in ones place to me.
You're absolutely right.
HONEST to GOD (on my kids)....it's NOT about being right. I'm OK with not being right...it's just that every single convo is the same. I respect your opinions, but it's always always always the repubs fault...
I understand that you DO feel that way, and it's fine, but it's frustrating to me as I see both parties doing so much of the same things...and yet, there's never an acknowledgement that the BS comes from both sides.
That's just how I feel. I'm not expecting anyone to throw the dems or Obama under the bus, but it's just always so one sided. It truly makes it hard to ever present any kind of argument,.,.,.having a debate with that bottom line is impossible.
I ENJOY discussing issues...but anymore, it's the one-two punch and we're done...issue gets posted, it's the repubs' fault, we go back and forth a bit, and we're done.
Anyway...night night.
You're absolutely right.
HONEST to GOD (on my kids)....it's NOT about being right. I'm OK with not being right...it's just that every single convo is the same. I respect your opinions, but it's always always always the repubs fault...
I understand that you DO feel that way, and it's fine, but it's frustrating to me as I see both parties doing so much of the same things...and yet, there's never an acknowledgement that the BS comes from both sides.
That's just how I feel. I'm not expecting anyone to throw the dems or Obama under the bus, but it's just always so one sided. It truly makes it hard to ever present any kind of argument,.,.,.having a debate with that bottom line is impossible.
I ENJOY discussing issues...but anymore, it's the one-two punch and we're done...issue gets posted, it's the repubs' fault, we go back and forth a bit, and we're done.
Anyway...night night.
I often feel that same thing in our discussions. It gets very heated and we do really let go, don't we?
Venting. Better than taking it out on the hubs or kicking the dog, I guess.
Venting. Better than taking it out on the hubs or kicking the dog, I guess.
I would only add that my last post seems to apply across the board. Just remember, its a full moon.
Yeah, but curiously you seem to thrive here. I just cannot figure out why you would put yourself thru such torture? I mean, it is just a bunch of opinions now isnt it? Seems more like a need to win or put one in ones place to me. But hey, you gals have fun tearing down the house, Im in for a cosmo. Nite all
LOL, cute teko. I sure feel like I need a straight jacket after these convos.
No need to address why questions in the last post...as they were already answered before I even wrote them.
Back to the topic at hand....I'll be anxious to see what the SC finds.
(see, no caps that time...woo hoo!)
No need to address why questions in the last post...as they were already answered before I even wrote them.
Back to the topic at hand....I'll be anxious to see what the SC finds.
(see, no caps that time...woo hoo!)
Teko, it is the elephant in the room, and no one wants to hear it and most avoid saying it,but it is true.
The fact is a lot of these ppl cannot bear seeing a black man so stately and so intelligent and so better than them, leading our country. *That* is what is touching all these raw nerves.
*That* is what the freakin hate is about.
The fact is a lot of these ppl cannot bear seeing a black man so stately and so intelligent and so better than them, leading our country. *That* is what is touching all these raw nerves.
*That* is what the freakin hate is about.
As if you are reasonable with your screaming capital letters and so on and we are so unreasonable...
Whatever rivil. It's called accentuating...because I'm typing not talking. If I was talking, I would place emphasis on that word to make my point come accross better.
Pfffft.
Whatever rivil. It's called accentuating...because I'm typing not talking. If I was talking, I would place emphasis on that word to make my point come accross better.
Pfffft.
I think you would look very good in white. Are you not a nurse afterall?
"Obama and the dems have ZERO accountability"
At least throw me a bone here so I don't have to beat my head against that wall. Do you SEE what I'm saying? That literally EVERY topic, every discussion ends the same...with the repubs being obstructionists? I'm the first to admit that especially with the Tea Party element, YES, that happens...but I just can't see how it's fair to attribute EVERY conservative view and counter argument to that. It just isn't...it's not reasonable.
We barely get through a couple of posts and that gets tossed out there. Do you see how frustrating that is? I have no problem critisizing my guys...sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't...and sometimes I think they're being jacka$$es. But there are GOOD repubs in there fighting for issues that ARE important to them...and I think we ALL have a responsibility to not always have the same knee jerk reactions. Just like I don;'t agree with the folks on the right who blame every little thing on Obama...I think that's close minded.
PLEASE...at LEAST tell me you get what I'm saying before I end up in a white jacket!!!! ;0)
At least throw me a bone here so I don't have to beat my head against that wall. Do you SEE what I'm saying? That literally EVERY topic, every discussion ends the same...with the repubs being obstructionists? I'm the first to admit that especially with the Tea Party element, YES, that happens...but I just can't see how it's fair to attribute EVERY conservative view and counter argument to that. It just isn't...it's not reasonable.
We barely get through a couple of posts and that gets tossed out there. Do you see how frustrating that is? I have no problem critisizing my guys...sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't...and sometimes I think they're being jacka$$es. But there are GOOD repubs in there fighting for issues that ARE important to them...and I think we ALL have a responsibility to not always have the same knee jerk reactions. Just like I don;'t agree with the folks on the right who blame every little thing on Obama...I think that's close minded.
PLEASE...at LEAST tell me you get what I'm saying before I end up in a white jacket!!!! ;0)
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
