This email was sent to you by:
James |
|
Mortgage News Daily
|
Message: YOUR MESSAGE HERE |
Email alerts, such as this one, are a
free service provided by Mortgage News Daily. If you would like to receive an alert when
important news breaks please
register to join our community.
Court Ruling Jeopardizes Cordray's Recess Appointment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia just ruled that three recess appointments made by President Barack
Obama last year are constitutionally invalid.
The Court ruled specifically on appointments made to the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) during a Congressional recess last January but the
ruling has implications for the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was made on the same
day.
The Office of White House Counsel has not yet
reacted to the decision but it is nearly certain they will appeal it to the
Supreme Court. If allowed to stand the
Appeals Court ruling invalidates dozens of decisions made by the NLRB over the
last year. Cordray's appointment is
being challenged in a separate court case which could have similar implications
for the copious rulemaking done by CFPB under his directorship.
The NLRB appointment and that of Cordray were made
by the President during a Senate recess because Senate Republicans had blocked all
four appointments with the threat of filibusters. The three NLRB nominees were blocked because
the minority party considered them too pro-union. Republicans admitted that Cordray was well
qualified for his position but they were opposed to the existence of CFPB which
was established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.
The Court said that recess appointments were intended to fill vacancies that
occurred during congressional recesses rather than to circumvent senate
confirmations. "Considering the
text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were
invalid from their inception," the judges said.
Senate Republicans
had also contended that they were not in actual recess at the time. Even though most members had dispersed to
their home states for the Christmas/New Years holidays they had arranged for
members who remained in the Washington area to gavel the otherwise empty
chamber to order each day precisely to thwart recess appointments.
More from MND:
If you would like to opt-out of receiving email forwards from this person please click here to remove your email address.
This email was sent to you by:
|
Mortgage News Daily
|
 |
James Police Sunglasses For Everyday Use Chisinau Chisinau Chisinau CA 123456 |
123456 |
Message:
YOUR MESSAGE HERE
Court Ruling Jeopardizes Cordray's Recess Appointment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia just ruled that three recess appointments made by President Barack
Obama last year are constitutionally invalid.
The Court ruled specifically on appointments made to the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) during a Congressional recess last January but the
ruling has implications for the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was made on the same
day.
The Office of White House Counsel has not yet
reacted to the decision but it is nearly certain they will appeal it to the
Supreme Court. If allowed to stand the
Appeals Court ruling invalidates dozens of decisions made by the NLRB over the
last year. Cordray's appointment is
being challenged in a separate court case which could have similar implications
for the copious rulemaking done by CFPB under his directorship.
The NLRB appointment and that of Cordray were made
by the President during a Senate recess because Senate Republicans had blocked all
four appointments with the threat of filibusters. The three NLRB nominees were blocked because
the minority party considered them too pro-union. Republicans admitted that Cordray was well
qualified for his position but they were opposed to the existence of CFPB which
was established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.
The Court said that recess appointments were intended to fill vacancies that
occurred during congressional recesses rather than to circumvent senate
confirmations. "Considering the
text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were
invalid from their inception," the judges said.
Senate Republicans
had also contended that they were not in actual recess at the time. Even though most members had dispersed to
their home states for the Christmas/New Years holidays they had arranged for
members who remained in the Washington area to gavel the otherwise empty
chamber to order each day precisely to thwart recess appointments.
If you would like to opt-out of receiving email forwards from this person please click here to remove your email address.