« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Elizabeth Warren (Who?) CFPB nomination on indefinite hiatus.

The Who? in the title reflects the fact that Elizabeth Warren is more or less unknown outside of Activist Left circles, where she is generally considered to be a secular saint*. Warren would also be the first head of the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (CFPB) mandated by Dodd-Frank, except for the minor detail that the last thing we need right now is yet another regulatory agency seemingly designed to put the brakes on economic development.   Anyway, the short version of the current brouhaha: Senate Republicans won’t let Warren’s nomination come to a vote; House Republicans have no qualms whatsoever about denying the President the ability to make recess appointments for the rest of the 112th Congress; and Democrats, having conveniently forgotten that they did the exact same thing to President George Bush, are upset and wounded over the entire thing. And, oh yes, progressives are particularly upset and wounded that a Republican** called her a liar to her face when she tried to play I’m-too-important-for-this-hearing:

What makes this particularly entertaining is that the Left really, really wants this specific woman in this specific position, which suggests that the CFPB is going to be more or less a meaningless shell without her.  Those remembering the history of the FBI may want to contemplate the perils of giving an unelected bureaucrat too much power – oh, who am I kidding?  The Right doesn’t need me to tell them that and the Left is going to scratch their heads over the very question.  At any rate, expect this one-sided showdown to contribute to what promises to be a very long, slow burn this summer by Democrats as they increasingly wonder why things aren’t breaking their way…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I’m not exactly sure why she’s in such high regard – which doesn’t mean that it’s not real, for given values of ‘real.’  To the point where the Left was certain that she could have saved the Democratic majority in the House in 2010.  No, really.

**Rep. Patrick McHenry, NC-10 (until they finish fixing the CDs in North Carolina, at least).  Hey, why doesn’t the Online Left go and raise a lot of money for his opponent? – seeing as McHenry’s in a R+17 district, which makes him almost as vulnerable as Rep. Elijah Cummings (the other Congressman in that clip) is.  Which is to say… not.  We’re all still having a chuckle over here at the way that one simple “You lie!” removed $1.69 million Democratic dollars from the 2010 election as thoroughly as if the money had been taken out to a field and burned.  We’d love to see it happen again, and again, and again.

COMMENTS

  • leefox

    …news.

  • George Neitz

    A smarmy self important %itch this person is, she resents being asked questions by the peoples representatives who she obviously feels far superior to .
    Its time to remove people like this far away from government

  • sta46

    this specific woman in this specific position” there must be a “really, really specific” reason for their burning desires which the right has yet to unearth.

  • johnt

    be actually annoyed that they would dare ask you questions, demand a written request to your office,[one of your pages will fill it in, maybe get the spelling right], best of all, show the totalitarian arrogance that is your heritage Ms. Warren.
    Just another nazi, expect & dread more.
    The day is coming, be prepared.

  • ohiohistorian

    You said
    House Republicans have no qualms whatsoever about denying the President the ability to make recess appointments for the rest of the 112th Congress;
    Please explain. Are you saiying that the House is proposing to stay in session continuously to 2013 inauguration?

  • paramedichess

    To answer your question, the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the permission of the House (and the other way around). Historically, Presidents have not done recess appointments durring recesses of less than four days, however the constitution does not require this.
    Most importantly, it is time to amend the constitution to end recess appointments. The reason the constitution gives the president such power is that in the eighteenth century, congress did not meet year-round as they do now, and calling congress back into session was a huge ordeal (no phones, no internet, and everyone traveled on horseback). Now, congress is in session for the vast majority of the year, and in an emergency they could be called back into session within 48 hours. No president, regardless of party, needs the ability to appoint powerful agency heads without confirmation.

  • electionwatch

    I totally agree with paramedichess of the fact that recess appointments should be banned. The President shouldn’t have that much power of selecting his own personal choice of a powerful agency head by himself. All nominations by the President should be voted on by Congress and if the nomination is defated, nominate someone else. It’s as fair as that. The Constitution should be amended to ban recess appointments as it gives too much power to the President. This is one reason why we created the Congress-so that the President wouldn’t have all of the powers.

  • ohiohistorian

    but it still doesn’t answer my question. Again: Has the House said that they intend to remain in session in order to prevent this? I have seen nothing anywhere, and the House schedule right now has about 10 days over the Fourth of July that are scheduled off. The Senate similarly shows the 4-10 July period off. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=senate_calendar&docid=sc001.pdf

    My comment is this: I do not believe that Boehner has the guts to keep the Senate in session, and the Democrats in the Senate have already numerous periods for recess appointments.

    As far as amending recess appointments, that would have forced George W. Bush to have no ambassador to the UN instead of John Bolton. These appointments take months to vet the person, etc. Yes, there are politics involved. And by Senate rules, one member can anonymously hold review of a nomination. You going to amend the Senate rules, too. I think you need to think these things through on what the ramifications are of what you propose.

  • bassethound

    When I read my ultra-leftist former high school classmates slobber and moan about how the “evil” right is blocking this woman’s nomination on our reunion site, I knew it was nothing but a good thing.

  • talgus

    obviously means something to me that Presidents have deemed to IGNORE. As recesses are now short, and transport quick, there should be no recess appointments… ALL BAD. Nothing but a dictatorial move on every Presidents part that made one.

  • 1689

    What a small minded twit this woman is. And the phony shock on her face when the Congressman called her on pretending there was some agreement. She shouldn’t be given authority over anything except her own house and her poor husband, if she has one.

  • Locke

    Crats and a desired goal don’t expect too much. Especially if the tradition is known to perhaps 0.03% of the voting public.