Ben Nelson - Hypocritical Moron

I am furious about the nomination of fellow union-side lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board being defeated by yet another filibuster -- this time with the help of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.  Nelson, who voted for cloture on Bush nominees like John Bolton, justified his joining in the Republican filibuster by claiming that Becker "would bring an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB."  What does that even mean?

Perhaps Nelson is unaware that the National Labor Relations Act, the core statute that Becker would be hearing cases about, was passed by Congress in 1935 with the explicit statutory purpose of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining."  

Becker was superbly qualified and would have been a great addition to an entity that continues to be crippled by a lack of a quorum.  (Only two of its five seats have been filled since January 1, 2008, a condition that may well lead to hundreds of decisions of its remaining two members being invalidated.) 

It is time for Obama to follow in Bush's footsteps and fill these positions with recess appointees at the first opportunity -- Bush, in fact, had the balls to appoint the Director of Labor Law Policy at the notoriously anti-union chamber of Commerce.  Indeed, I would recommend that Obama take every nominee who is currently being stalled by the likes of Richard Shelby and the other Senate assholes and grant them recess appointments.  And the first recess appointment should be Craig Becker.  

Comments

[corvus9]

Hear hear. I definitely hope he follows through with that. I got the sense, watching his press conference from earlier today, that he himself is getting quite ticked off about the relentless obstructionism that is going on over there.

Hey, any idea how recess appointments work? I mean, do they have only a limited time during which they can serve, and then they have to leave? If so, can they be reappointed indefinitely, or do they have to step down?

[kathy a.]

it is really mind-boggling that a 52-33 vote in favor of the nomination is a "loss." and completely unacceptable that a 5 member board has only had 2 members for over two years.

[oddjob]

What does that even mean?

I can only think it means that Ben Nelson's personal agenda includes a distinct dislike for organized labor.

[oddjob]

I mean, do they have only a limited time during which they can serve, and then they have to leave? If so, can they be reappointed indefinitely, or do they have to step down?

IIRC from the John Bolton nonsense, a recess appointment is only valid for as long as the present Congress is in session. After that the nomination must be submitted again.

[oddjob]

(Correction - "After that A nomination must be submitted again.")

[Sir Charles]

The recess appointments are of limited duration. However, they accomplish two important things -- one, they allow important governmental functions to be carried out. (And I am not kidding about this -- we have a case in which wrongfully terminated employees are entitled to about $60 million in back pay -- that case cannot proceed without a quorum.) The second point, and even more important in my mind, is for Barack Obama to at long last deliver the fuck you to the Senate that they so richly deserve. In fact, I would recommend serial recess appointments if need be.

[corvus9]

In case anyone missed it, today at the press conference Barack did promise to start issuing several recess appointments during the upcoming recess if there is not movement on his nominations, on that basis that key government function need to be carried out. It sounds like he doesn't necessarily plan to appoint all people that are held up, and he phrased it in terms of a critique of holds, so I don't what what that means for someone like Becker who simply can't get an up or down vote, but Obama has in the past sounded quite serious about supporting labor, so I am hopeful that he will work to get a quorum on the NLRB once he decides that "this shit is getting way to complicated for" him.

[Mandos]

This only serves to reinforce the general Ottomanity of the USA today. That little things like appointments can be held up for so long, and with such little margin, and involving members of the party in power itself?

It's a long road down and I have no skills to survive the medieval world we're building in a USA and a world that cannot handle any of its terminal crises...

[Sir Charles]

Mandos,

It's a pretty sad and frustrating state of affairs. I think it's time for Obama to declare war on the Senate where he can.

[Mandos]

I'm really doubtful that he will.

Every real intervention requires some relinquishment of money to the masses by, well, Wall Street. As this is unacceptable, why should Obama declare war on the Senate?

[oddjob]

The second point, and even more important in my mind, is for Barack Obama to at long last deliver the fuck you to the Senate that they so richly deserve.

You of course realize the wingnuts felt the same way when Georgie, the Idiot Dauphin lived in the White House.

(You may well be correct in your opinion, but just for the sake of being devil's advocate & all.)

[minstrel hussain boy]

war? 'bout fucking time yo.

war i know about.

[Toast]

If Obama couldn't be moved to denounce the Senate after Lieberman's HCR perfidy, what makes you think he'd do it over this lower-profile betrayal of Nelson's?

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Except that Georgie pretty much had his way with the Senate on his major initiatives. Yeah, they blocked Bolton and a couple of other extreme wingnuts, but they caved on so much else.

But to be honest, I've always been a filibuster opponent. I actually think the president is entitled to staff his administration pretty much as he sees fit and that these kinds of tactics -- even with Bolton -- are illegitimate. (I think judicial nominees are slightly different given their role as an utterly untouchable separate branch of government vested with enormous powers.)

Toast,

I am assuming that a some point the impact of this stuff is cumulative. Also, having now lost the supermajority and as we are getting into campaign season it makes more and more sense tactically.

[big bad wolf]

a recess appointment of becker is the right thing to do and good politics. let's have a conversation about why republicans hate people who work for a living and would like to see they make next to no money. let's have a conversation about why republicans whine about real americans and majorities, but don't beleive in majority votes in the senate. let's have a conversation about why lazy republicans like mccain and shelby don't do any work or ask any questions on nominations they supposedly disapprove of on substantive grounds. those are simple but important issues. most folks don't want to hear about legislative procedure and policy but they do want people to be able to earn a decent living, they do want to feel like votes and voting matter, and they don't like disruptive element (they are tempermentally conservative, not politically). we need to have that conversation and have it on our term. being reasonable and smart and detailed doesn't get us votes, getting a message out does. (we should still be reasoanble and smart and detailed when governing, but not in explaining the governing).

and i think obama should pick the two courts of appeals nominees who have been languishing the longerst and give them recess appointments, and then explain over and over why he gave these good people appointments.

[corvus9]

Shit, I think he should just appoint all 70 people held up by holds and then just tear into the Senate in a televised speech, but that might make it hard to get other things passed.

[litbrit]

I agree with you, C. In fact, it's time to make a big old banner that reads:

How long 'till RECESS?!

I also agree that President O is giving off a distinct "I'm really getting sick of this shit" vibe (and yeah, I may be projecting just a little bit).

Enough with the bipartisanism. Fuck Joe fucking Scarborough. They've had a year of his trying his damndest to reach across the aisle, and every time he did, they smacked his hand. Sod the whole useless lot of them, I say, and let's move things forward again. You know, PROGRESS and all.

[corvus9]

Litbrit, the biggest problem with doing any kind of "fuck you" aimed at the Senate is that Senators have such sensitive egos, doing anything that smacks of disrespect can come back to bite you on the ass later. Senators, who might have supported you on one particular issue or another (if on nothing else) suddenly won't touch you, and will happily go along with obstruction. Now, for the most part this is ceasing to be an issue with the GOP senators, who are voting against him on anything anyways. But there are still some votes that he must be hoping to get cooperation on, like Lindsey Graham on climate change. And the thing is, it's not just Republicans who might take offense at such an act, but Centrist Dems (you can just see Ben Nelson blathering on about how this defies the will of the Senate is violates the separation of powers blah blah blah), and probably even a couple Rules Lawyer progressive, like Russ Feingold.

On the other hand, going off of Josh Marshall's Bitchslap Theory of American Politics, maybe it would actually be a good thing in terms of gaining support if he knocks them around a bit, shows them he won't just put up with it. And to do that, he might need to make some kind of bold move.

[litbrit]

corvus, everyone: please see the Rachel video upstairs. She digs into this very issue--Rethug obstructionism.

[Mandos]

The problem is that we're at the point in the political cycle where that kind of Big Play is necessary if Obama wants any chance to be a two-term president. If he cannot face down an obstructionist and completely intransigent Senate, he cannot govern. If he cannot govern, he should let Sarah Palin "govern."

It's getting to the point where it's simple as that.

[litbrit]

(OT, but I think the word "moron" is falling into disfavor, C. An acceptable alternative term: Cognitively challenged, lying, two-faced motherfucker.)

[Sir Charles]

Do I have to apologize to Sarah Palin?

Also I misspelled it -- I forgot that it is "Moran."