The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Obama's Tin Ear Returns

Text Size

When even a New Republic writer suggests that Barack Obama's Wednesday recess appointments to the Consumer Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board are probably unconstitutional, you know we're in for a good fight… at least if Senate Republicans have the courage to take it on.

The left-leaning Politico also notes that "… President Barack Obama’s decision to jam the Senate and install three labor nominees and a consumer watchdog without a confirmation vote raises unsettled legal questions that could have a long-lasting impact past his presidency."

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin has a good summary of initial Republican response to Obama's power-grab.

My view: While Obama is pandering to the far left and union (if you'll pardon my redundancy) parts of his base, his move is politically unwise.

Think about Obamacare: It was not just the content of the law which people hated; it was also the process. From "deem and pass" to "reconciliation" to "pass it so you can learn what's in it" every part of the Democrats' efforts to shove the measure down our throats stunk of heavy-handedness if not outright tyranny.

Obama's recess appointments were an unnecessary reminder by Obama that he is indeed a tyrant. It's one thing to fight "obstructionism." It's another thing entirely to say that he, rather than the Senate, determines whether or not the Senate is in session.

If these appointments are challenged in court and if Obama loses, it would do measurable damage to his election prospects -- not just because of the appointments themselves but because it is such a stark reminder that our president is a man who thinks himself and his vaunted goals so important that the rule of law should yield to his will. Other than among the roughly 20 percent of Americans (university professors, union members, and government employees) who strongly approve of Obama's job performance, this sort of autocratic behavior does not play well to the American sensibility. It is a sensibility that is figuratively and literally foreign to Barack Obama, who spent formative years living in anti-democratic places like Indonesia and Columbia University.

It may be that Obama is feeling his oats after his payroll tax cut "victory" over House Republicans and therefore trying to flex his muscles. But he's picked a stupid fight at a stupid time, with far more to lose than to gain, reminding us of the surprisingly tin-eared Chicago-style politician he spent most of 2009 and 2010 proving himself to be.

View all comments (54) | Leave a comment

George S| 1.5.12 @ 2:46PM

Challenged in court? Who has standing (has been harmed) and what fast-food court do you know of that will hear this case in the next 10 months?

This is lawlessness. The House has no choice but to initiate impeachment hearings. But that would work in Obama's favor -- sympathy by persecution (Clinton by Proxy). Maybe that is what he has in mind going into an election season.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 3:53PM

You're right on the "standing" issue. It's not clear that a Senator can sue. However, anybody who is hit with a regulation from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau probably would have standing to sue, and probably would get financial backing to bring the case.

Warrior| 1.5.12 @ 4:37PM

I also believe even a somewhat dimwitted attorney could easily make this a class action suit.

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 12:18PM

I believe Jay Sekulow and his group have already filed a suit and the Chamber of Commerce is contemplating a suit. Anyone affected by a CFPB regulation will have standing to challenge his appointment.

Also, there has been no "obstructionism" on the NLRB nominations. He just announced them 2 weeks ago.

George S| 1.5.12 @ 2:46PM

Challenged in court? Who has standing (has been harmed) and what fast-food court do you know of that will hear this case in the next 10 months?

Elizabeth Beckett| 1.5.12 @ 4:10PM

We're making a mistake thinking that all union members will vote for Obama or even Democrats for that matter. Usually the leaders are Democrats, but the members think for themselves. I used to belong to a union and have walked the picket line for them, always voted Republican as did a lot of others.

Stan Redmond| 1.7.12 @ 8:05PM

Unions members need not be troubled by the choices on a ballot. The Obama, SEIU, and AFL-CIO machine have ensured the proper vote will be cast for you...many times...

RJ| 1.5.12 @ 5:40PM

Ross,

All of your statements are true and this unlawful behavior by Obama and his administration is not an isolated incident; the man and his supporters do not feel constrained by the law. I hope you are right that there are still enough Americans who are offended by a lawless president and will hold him accountable.

AVCurmudgeon| 1.5.12 @ 5:48PM

One of Machiavelli's precepts about governing was that The Prince must always be conscious of the will of the people. Go against the will of the people too often and you will lose any legitimate claim to power. I would like to think this is starting to happen with Obama: going back to Obamacare he and his Congressional myrmidons have repeatedly forced their bills and actions down the throats of the American people. Now Obama is presuming to act as Congressional leadership.

Obama's 2012 campaign slogan: "Whatcha Gonna Do About It?". Good question, Congress.

Pecos Pete| 1.6.12 @ 9:11AM

Wow! myrmidons ... very nice.

Agamemnon| 1.6.12 @ 6:02PM

I knew Achilles, and Obama, Sir, is no Achilles!

Trelane| 1.7.12 @ 12:18AM

Obama may be no Achilles, but he is a heel.

rip300rog| 1.6.12 @ 3:43PM

Achilles' myrmidons were a brave and nobel lot. Obama's congressional henchmen are hardly in their leauge. On your point about Obama now wearing the hat of Congressional Leader it just occured to me that given is rather skimpy and shot legislative tenure maybe he just doesn't understand how laws get passed. Somebody please 'splain it to him.

rip300rog| 1.6.12 @ 3:44PM

his rather skimpy and short, my fingers can't keep up.

Stan Redmond| 1.7.12 @ 8:11PM

Unfortunately during Machievellis time the "peasants" had relatively simple ways of "dealing with" the unrespected Prince (criminal prince or lucky prince). If you look at The Prince again you will see Obama embodies every single aspect of the bad Prince and none of the qualities of a good prince.

Sad state of affairs

Cynthia Pestka| 1.6.12 @ 2:50AM

I would really like to believe that you are right, and the American people would vote this man out of office. However, I really hoped that the American people wouldn't fall for his "hopey" "Changey" thing, but they did. I gotta be honest, I don't have faith anymore that enough Americans will choose not to vote for him next year.

EJM| 1.7.12 @ 2:02AM

Keep the faith Cynthia, that Obama will not be reelected, and work for it to happen.

Jeff Perren| 1.6.12 @ 1:38PM

"at least if Senate Republicans have the courage to take it on."

Sadly, that prospect seems remote for lack of the virtue to which you refer.

Agoraphobic Plumber| 1.6.12 @ 3:55PM

I'm not very well-versed in senate procedure and lore...but don't the Democrats control the senate? Wouldn't the senate majority leader determine whether or not the senate is in fact in session? Doesn't seem to me like the senate Rs even have much of a dog in this fight (besides the fact that Obama is doing an end-run around their filibuster by using a recess appointment in the first place, but at least the recess appointment has well-established precedent...)

John Krieg| 1.6.12 @ 5:15PM

The senate was in pro-forma session. Harry Reid and the Dems used this technique when Bush was President and the Obama administration defended such practices in court. Obama also could have done this a few weeks ago without creating a fight or a constitutional issue. He chose not to because he wanted to humiliate the GOP and stage a campaign issue for in the battleground state of Ohio.

Goldwaterite| 1.6.12 @ 4:01PM

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."---Abraham Lincoln
Not this time, PresBO, not this time!

Cybil Liberty| 1.6.12 @ 4:34PM

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to conentrate on"
-George W. Bush-

bg71| 1.7.12 @ 1:23AM

ha ha ha ... this is too funny! good one.

Noah| 1.6.12 @ 4:40PM

Now, I think Obama is a terrible president, but if Republicans are going to block every single person he appoints to this agency (and he's been trying for a couple of years now) then he should just give up trying to get their permission and do it without them.

Which he has now done. Through recess appointments for which there is a large precedent.

Of all the problems to have with the man, this is hardly the biggest.

Jeff Perren| 1.6.12 @ 8:03PM

"then he should just give up trying to get their permission and do it without them."

No, he should just give up - on this, and his entire Progressive agenda. If it can't be done constitutionally (and, even more importantly, ethically) it shouldn't be done. And that goes for Republicans, too.

sub| 1.6.12 @ 4:54PM

it's not a "tin ear." it's the same supreme arrogance and narcissism that this j-off punter has exhibited since he first took office. he's a lying two-bit teleprompter reading-hack, and the only people that support him are vile liberal ideologues and political idiots. the worst president in 100 years, easily.

david pliskin| 1.6.12 @ 9:27PM

15 times/day everyday since early 2009 I've been muttering these same descriptives as you...in various form. We are beside ourselves with incredulity at the baldfaced lying & corruption the inveterate thieves of the democrat party are "permitted" to promulgate against the taxpayers in this once great nation. He & his ventriloquists have reduced us. Don't they just make you want to cringe every minute of every hour of everyday? It's embarrassing how facile their orientation to "governing" is.

david pliskin| 1.6.12 @ 9:27PM

Mimi Mayes| 1.9.12 @ 12:05PM

Sub --- brilliantly stated!

John Krieg| 1.6.12 @ 5:21PM

Obama could have made a legal recess appointment several weeks ago but chose not to do so because he wanted to paint the GOP as "obstructionist" to further his campaign narrative. What he did was to come across as arrogant and dictatorial just as the author rightly points out he did during the Obamacare debacle. The GOP is also rightly concerned that Dodd Frank set this new Consumer Protection Agency up to be self funding through the Federal Reserve Board. The agency will this be unaccountable to the representatives of the people. To use one of Obama's overused adjectives this is truly "unprecendented" and very dangerous. Obama is governing more in the style of a Hugo Chavez than a European style social democrat.

Chuck| 1.6.12 @ 6:34PM

Gee, Did GWB have a tin ear when he took us into an illegal war? How about when He insisted it would last no more than six months, despite military experts saying it would last for a decade? OBAMA has a tin ear??? You are insane. I guess that's what you complain about when you have a Dem president who is fixing the economy that your party ruined.

NavVette| 1.6.12 @ 7:10PM

Bush did not take us into an illegal war. He obtained consent from Congress first. It may have been stupid, but it was not illegal. Unlike Obama who did NOT get congressional approval for his venture into Libya. This Dem prez has not fixed the economy, but instead has made it significantly worse. Between his Dept of Energy not giving out permits to oil companies to continue drilling, giving 1.5 Billion of taxpayer money to at least 3 "green" companies that have gone, or are going, under, his NRLB board preventing Boeing from opening a second plant in No. Carolina, not allowing the pipeline to be built which prevents thousands of people from working, and flooding the economy by printing money that isn't backed up by real goods, thereby causing the cost of all goods to go up significantly, how can you possibly say that he's fixing the economy?? The republicans over the last 10 years haven't done us any favors, but this clown and his Demoncrat Congress have tripled down on screwing the middle class and rewarding the rich.

zelina| 1.6.12 @ 8:30PM

You are seriously unhinged and wrong on every point you make - btw, it' a Republican-controlled Congress if you haven't educated yourself.

Nebuchadnezzar| 1.6.12 @ 9:02PM

And here I thought Harry Reid was a Democrat. Thanks for clearing that up.

Stan Redmond| 1.7.12 @ 8:18PM

I suggest you pick up a newspaper sometime. You might be surprised who is actually in control of the congress...

Oh yes. During the Senate and House super majorities since 2006 up to 2010 with 2 years of that with a democrat president those mean republicans were in control.

Keep grabbing.

david pliskin| 1.6.12 @ 9:33PM

Fixed economy?! Huh? You must be high on gu'mint cheese and other giveaways. Is that the prevailing thoyugh amongst you & your lackeys in the DMV? You're clueless about business down here on Main Street where most of us live. And stop with the flyers we hjust have to pay sanitation OT to remove them!

Dean| 1.6.12 @ 6:41PM

He won in 2008 so he should get his way and be allowed to appoint anyone he wants and get them approved. When he loses in Novemeber, the appointees will be replaced, the regulations revoked, the legislation repealed or amended. Democracy. Hope and change.

RJ| 1.6.12 @ 6:45PM

The Democrats in the Senate have acted on a different philosophy for at least 25 years. Also the Constitution requires Senate confirmation for a reason; not just to serve as a rubber stamp.

Former Republican| 1.6.12 @ 6:56PM

The Senate has the constitutional right to vote Presidential appointments up or down. There is no constitutional right for the Senate minority to try to use that process as blackmail to get changes to laws that they did not have the votes to accomplish in the first place. Mitch McConnell is a tyrant, not President Obama. President Obama did the right thing.

Mrs.Vito| 1.6.12 @ 10:30PM

Lawlessness is never right. It is unbecoming of a U.S. President who has sworn to uphold the Constitution.

getcali| 1.6.12 @ 11:22PM

You are mistaken. The constitution empowers the Senate to set up its 0wn rules and procedures. The Republicans are operating within those constitutionally established rules and procedures when they filibuster an appointee - just ask the Democrats in the Senate who have repeatedly done the same thing.

valwayne| 1.6.12 @ 11:36PM

Bit by bit we see more of the Hugo Chavez playbook coming from Obama. The Contitution means nothing to him. Anything his appointees do, anything either of these agencies do is now subject to legal challenge. And if the courts were to uphold his power grad than the extreme left should consider that Obama will have effectiely eliminated the "Advise and Consent" provision of the Constitution for most Presidential appointees in the future, including for future Republican Presidents. What comes around goes around, unless of course Obama is as successful as his extreme left wing friend and dictator Hugo!

David Brickner| 1.7.12 @ 1:12AM

I would have thought that someone would have the sense of irony to compare Obama's actions to those of h i t l e r around the Nov 6, 1932 elections in Germany. His single-minded provocations left Hindenberg to appoint hin Chancellor over his own better judgement. Clear indications of a narcissistic demogogue here.....

Marc Jeric| 1.7.12 @ 2:30AM

Let me draw some parallels between the communist hell from which I escaped many years ago and our situation now:
1) General Secretary of the Communit Party = President Obama;
2) Central Committee of the CP = congressional Democrats;
3) Politburo o the CP = White House advisers or czars or komissars;
4) Community Organizations = local soviets;
5) Agit-Prop Office = our MSM: ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN,MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times...
6) Demonstrators on favor of "social justice" like Hitler's brown shirts and Mussolini's fascists = ACORN, OWS, SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFT, NEA, AFSCME, Teamsters, Steel and Auto workers, local government employees unions, professoriate, Hollywood propagandists,...

Tommy T| 1.7.12 @ 6:20PM

Nice job Marc!

Jonathan| 1.7.12 @ 6:58AM

Wow - you have to claim that Politico is "left-leaning" to try to make your point?

Randy4| 1.7.12 @ 8:25AM

Wish I knew in '08 that Obama is a dictatorial autocrat, so utterly narcissistic and pleased with himself that he will destroy a great nation and pat himself on the back while doing it.

Resist We Much!| 1.7.12 @ 10:37AM

Only one Senate Democrat, out of 51 asked, told The Daily Caller that President Barack Obama was correct when he claimed the Senate was in recess Jan. 3. That’s the day Obama announced that he had exercised his executive authority to fill four top posts during a Senate recess.

Resist We Much!| 1.7.12 @ 10:40AM

As for Attorney General Ed Meese and a former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer, Todd Gaziano, point out in their editorial in the Washington Post, "if Congress does not resist, the injury is not just to its branch but ultimately to the people.” Separation of powers exists to protect liberty and to protect the rights of democratically elected senators to participate in the nominations process. This is a “tyrannical usurpation of power” by President Obama, and Congress must act quickly to restore an appropriate balance between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

"The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting “pro forma” sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly “pro forma” session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”

It does not matter one whit that most members of Congress are out of town and allow business to be conducted by their agents under unanimous consent procedures, because ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred and could not have occurred without the consent of the House."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

No One Important| 1.7.12 @ 2:14PM

Exactly.

Obama likes to say the "small minority" in the Senate is blocking it. Really? The "small minority" that is about to take the majority?

And the republicans are not the "minority" in the house, that is the MAJORITY.

Obama, lying to the nation again about his behavior and how he circumvented the laws of the nation.

As I said below. . . . the vision of a "dictator" is going to be built. Like all his stupid moves - this one is going to be added to a long list of Obama's circumvention of our laws, and is going to backfire on him.

Although I'd prefer a court to deem his move unconstitutional before that because this board isn't accountable to anyone, and this board needs to be disolved before it's ever convened.

The congress does not have the power to create an entity that is outside the power of their overview, outside the overview of the voters of the nation.

Ergo, this Consumer commission is unconstitutional.

Oldefarte| 1.7.12 @ 12:52PM

Legal challanges, impeachment, etc would be a waste of taxpayers' money and time. Again, redundently, what/who he was/is/will be should have been known by the taxpayer-voters [and reported by the MSM] prior to 11/4/08, but of course was not [and the American public is paying for such ignorance/stupidity now naturally]. The one/only solution is the election of the Republican nominee fro president in November.....it's that simple sadly, and we all have ten more months of political hell to face unavoidably!!!!!!!

No One Important| 1.7.12 @ 2:06PM

The senate should sue immediately.

You cannot make a "recess appointment" when the senate is not in recess. Just because Obama declares them in recess does not make it so.

While normally on the face of this, the american people wouldn't care about the "process" stuff, as commentators all over have said. . . . .

HOWEVER, remember how angry the nation was on the "process" stuff surrounding Obamacare?

Americans do care about this stuff.

1 move like this would not enflame the nation, however, it is becoming a track record of Obama's to "bypass" those laws he finds inconvenient. It's his behavior in total that people will look at, not just this 1 move. It's all his "moves" together.

Bypassed congress on Libya (although not in the forefront of anyone's mind anymore.) This "bypassing" of the Senate, the way Obamacare was rammed through, his "swipe of the pen" closing Gitmo. . . . . .and his EPA expanding authority into energy regulation. . . .and the expansive behavior of the NLRB blocking jobs. . . . .

Put all this together, and you have the picture of a "dictator" coming forward, not someone who "fights for the people." In the end, as most things he does, they usually backfire hard on Obama. He never seems to look at the consequences of his politically motivated behavior.

In the end, when "summed up" for people in the general election. Ramming through appointments to consumer protection boards that are unaccountable to anyone? Obama setting up the equivelent of another "fed" . . . . .is that what the nation really wants? And Obama stacking that "unaccountable" and "unelected" commission with people that thinks they way he does?

This was a bad, bad move by Obama, as will eventually be realized by his campaign as a vision of a "dictator" is built . . . not as someone who fights on "behalf" of the people, but fights against the people. . . .especially fighting against the people that were elected to represent them. . . .the house and senate.

The vision of a "dictator" will emerge, someone who believes in the almighty power of the government, whether it is "lawful" or not.

Tommy T| 1.7.12 @ 3:50PM

Good article, Ross, but the "tin ear" metaphor doesn't work. Would someone like to offer a better metaphor for Obama's actions? He seems to be unaware of the potential ramifications of his actions.
tin ear, no
emperor, no
stubborn, yes
foolhardy, yes
imbalanced mind, yes
can't see effects of actions well, yes

But what metaphor would work here?