Nobody will ever be confirmed to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The GOP has blocked confirmations for years for institutions they don't like and will continue to do so no matter who has the majority in the Senate or House.

This country is broken.

we could have such a thing in this pernicious capitalist society? Are we nuts here at DU?

relentlessly screwed. So she tried to help. Her idea was a good one.
It's the pure evil of business corporations raising its ugly head
again. How come such a few sick psychopaths can succeed in forcing their evil
wills on the vast majority of the American people?

We will remain broken. That part has to end. It is a shame they didn't do so in 09, or '11.

And we don't have one.

Substitute "ovaries" for "testicles" if you wish. This isn't a gender thing. For example, Hillary Clinton, though her politics were a little far to the right for my tastes, she would have fought for her positions as a Majority Leader, which Reid refuses to do.

I think the President told them not to.

Mark my word , if they do not get this thing up and running,
if the Republicans win in the next election--it is a goner.

It is more difficult to get rid of something that is up and
running than something not yet established.

Will Dems get that message out there?

be good until Dec. 2012. If Obama wins, he'll have to re-appointment
Cordrayin Jan. 2013. We might have both houses of Congress by then. If Obama loses,
it wouldn't make any difference, anyway.

The recess that was supposed to have taken place (before the July 4th one) was blocked by the GOP because they didn't want Obama to be able to make any recess appointments. The GOP refused to agree to adjournment and forced the Senate to go into Pro-forma Session.
That is exactly what they are planning to do again with the summer recess.

President Obama can not make recess appointments when there is no recess.

The recess that was supposed to have taken place (before the July 4th one) was blocked by the GOP because they didn't want Obama to be able to make any recess appointments. The GOP refused to agree to adjournment and forced the Senate to go into Pro-forma Session.
That is exactly what they are planning to do again with the summer recess.

President Obama can not make recess appointments when there is no recess.

All they can do is object to unanimous consent requests so that they have to take votes on recessing. The House can also prevent them from recessing for more than 3 days, but that's still enough time for a recess appointment.

Also, the GOP held up recess on memorial day. On July 4th, the Democrats wanted to keep the Senate in session to address the debt ceiling issue.

My guess is that he will make a recess appointment to the bureau eventually. But, he will do it closer to the election.

goes into Pro-forma session and recess appointments can NOT be made.

That is what the GOP did prior to the the week of Memorial Day when there was 'supposed' to be a recess and there was not.

This was debunked when somebody on politico said that. Recesses cannot be filibustered. The Democrats allowed the Senate to go into pro forma session in order to avoid having recorded votes on recessing.

Why would they want to avoid having recorded votes on recessing?

I don't understand that part.

Senator so and so voted to go on vacation while there was still important business to attend to.

Like I said, I think the Democrats will eventually adjourn the Senate (even if they have to take a vote to do it) in order to get somebody confirmed to that spot. I just think they want to do it closer to the election to get more political gain from it.

US Constitution, Article 1 contains:

"neither House may adjourn without the consent of the other for more than three days"

You are correct that the Senate can recess for fewer than three days without a cloture vote. The motion to recess is privileged.

But if the Senate wants to adjourn for more than three days, it can only do so pursuant to a concurrent resolution that previously passed BOTH Houses. Once a concurrent resolution for adjournment passes both Houses, THEN the majority leader can motion for a recess for longer than three days (if it is consistent with the concurrent resolution). Not before. The House can prevent the Senate from recessing for more than three days for the duration of Obama's presidency, and there is nothing the Senate can do about it.

Why does three days matter? Well, presumably the recess appointment can't be used with a one day recess. If that were the case, then every night the Senate recessed, the President could recess appoint everyone in his administration (making the Constitutionally required Senate confirmation superfluous). So assuming there is indeed a lower limit to what can possibly be considered an adjournment, is it two days? Three?

The Office of Legal Counsel has opined in the past that the threshold is more than three days for an intrasession recess. For Obama to recess appoint someone under that threshold, it would likely require overruling his OLC again (which I doubt he would want to do). It would also be unprecedented, and challenged in court.

I think a better path might be for the executive to adopt the position that pro forma sessions don't actually break a recess into smaller parts unless a quorum can be assembled. That would require the entire Senate to remain in Washington all year round to prevent recesses (and would allow the Senate majority to ensure recesses can happen). But even that interpretation would be unprecedented and would be challenged in court.

The point is that it is not clear at all here that Obama can legally act. I hope Obama does try to recess appoint a director (and defend the decision in court) -- I'm just saying that it might not work.

The constitution also grants the President the power to adjourn congress if both houses are deadlocked over adjournment. Note that the word "recess" isn't in the constitution either, it says "adjourn for a period of more than 3 days without consent of the other".

The constitution says the President can make appointments when the Senate isn't in session. If the framers wanted a lower limit, they would've set one. If they had intended it to be more than 3 days, so that the House could block the Senate from going into recess to prevent the President form making recess appointments, they wouldn't have given the President the power to adjourn congress in a deadlock.

It's unlikely that the framers were thinking about any of this when they wrote the recess appointment into the constitution. The purpose of it was to give the President the power to make appointments in a day and age when congress was in session only a few months of the year. They didn't set a lower bound because they didn't envision the President using it in a manner the Senate wouldn't approve of, since the appointments would only be valid for two years. Of course, they also didn't envision the filibuster and everything that comes with it, and maybe they would've been more specific about recess appointments if they did.

Yes, whatever poor person Obama puts up for nomination will be in limbo.

I don't see it getting any better for a long, long, long time, if ever.