Surprise surprise surprise ... NOT! ~ I hope Harry Reid is kicking his own ass ~ ~ Sooz

43 GOP Senators Threaten Obstruction Unless Consumer Protection Bureau Is Weakened
By Pat Garofalo on Feb 1, 2013 at 5:45 pm

When the Dodd-Frank financial reform law first passed, Senate Republicans refused to confirm a director for the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They promised to block any nominee — regardless of that nominee’s qualifications for the job — unless the Bureau was weakened and made subservient to the same bank regulators who failed to prevent the 2008 financial crisis.

President Obama was thus forced to recess appoint Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be the Bureau’s first director. Now that Obama has renewed Cordray’s nomination, the Senate GOP is again promising to block any nominee unless the Bureau is watered down:


Republicans want to implement a commission (instead of a lone director) and subject the CFPB to the appropriations process in order to stuff it full of appointees with no interest in regulating and starve it of funds. The other financial system regulators that have to go before Congress for their funds already don’t have the resources to implement Dodd-Frank, thanks the House GOP, leaving large swathes of it unfinished. There are also a host of other reasons that the CFPB needs to be both independently funded and have a strong, independent director.

The CFPB has done important work on behalf of consumers, winning wide praise from consumer advocates and the financial industry. Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have made it abundantly clear that they believe that blocking any and all nominees is an acceptable strategy.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/01/1530481/gop-senators-pledge-block-consumer-bureau/

Beef it up instead.

The GOP/TPers once again prove they don't understand the definition of "honorable" or their oath of office ~ even Harry Reid must recognize this now ~ I'm fairly certain the recent federal kabosh on recess appointments will go to the USSC ~ but for now, I say GO NUCLEAR ~ Sooz

Extortion politics that cannot stand
By Steve Benen - Mon Feb 4, 2013 11:07 AM EST

It's not exactly news that Senate filibuster rules have been abused to the point of breaking the institution. Though the Senate operated by majority rule for about two centuries, there are now, as a practical matter, mandatory supermajorities for just about everything.

That said, some filibusters matter far more than others, and some may even rise to the level of a constitutional crisis.

President Obama nominated Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about a year ago, and no one could find any objections to his qualifications. But Republicans don't believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should exist, so they blocked Cordray's nomination in order to stop the law from being implemented. Indeed, GOP senators said they would indefinitely refuse to allow the agency to function -- or do any work at all -- unless Democrats agreed to weaken the CFPB's powers and lessen consumer protections.

Just so we're clear, this had never happened in American history. There was no precedent for the Senate blocking a qualified nominee solely because a minority of the chamber did not like the existence of the agency the nominee was selected to lead.

Obama tried to work around this blockade by giving Cordray a recess appointment, which according to a federal appeals court, may not have been entirely kosher. Either way, the president has now asked the Senate to give Cordray's nomination an up-or-down vote, which appears to have started the mess all over again.


I know this might seem like inside baseball. For those who've grown accustomed to a constant stream of filibusters, this probably even seems routine. It's why I think it's important to stress how truly radical the Republican move really is.

What we're talking about here is a shrinking Senate minority pursuing a nullification strategy -- they want to nullify federal law by abusing procedural tactics in a way that's literally never been done in the United States.

If Senate Republicans want changes to the CFPB, there's already a mechanism in place that allows them to pursue reforms: it's called the existing legislative process. Senators can write a bill, send it to committee, try to persuade their colleagues of the proposal's merit, debate it on the floor, vote for it, etc.

But that takes time and effort, and it might not work, especially since the changes the GOP wants are absurd. So, instead, Republicans intend to block existing federal law from taking effect unless Democrats accept changes demanded by financial industry lobbyists.

This is crazy. The Republican message, in a nutshell, is this: "Weaken consumer protections or we'll use filibusters to block the executive branch from enforcing existing federal law." Our system of government simply can't work this way.

In fact, it's scandalous in its own right that Republicans are determined to prevent the CFPB from serving as a public watchdog, looking out for American consumers against financial industry excesses. It appears the GOP wants to return Wall Street oversight to the conditions that helped create the 2008 crash in the first place.

What's more, if recess appointments are off the table, it leaves the White House with no real options. Obama can't enforce federal law because the Senate minority won't let him, and he can't appoint officials to his own administration when the Senate leaves town -- exercising a power specifically given to the executive in the Constitution -- because, according to Republicans, congressional recesses no longer exist.

I realize phrases like "constitutional crises" should not be thrown around casually, but the Senate minority's strategy is untenable.

And since the White House has effectively run out of legal options, that leaves one of three possibilities: (1) a minority of the Senate, for the first time in American history, nullifies federal law by abusing filibusters; (2) a majority of the Senate reforms filibuster rules through the so-called "nuclear option"; or (3) public pressure forces the Senate minority to back down.

Something's gotta give.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/04/16838726-extortion-politics-that-cannot-stand?lite