Where does this end?

Either the 45 senators who cast votes against ending debate had not thought through the implications of what they were doing, which is troubling, or they did think it through, and went ahead anyway, which is dangerous.

Why? Because Republicans acknowledge Cordray is fully qualified to head the bureau. They just object to the bureau itself.

In a May 2 letter to President Barack Obama, 44 Republican senators outlined problems they saw with the bureau, including the broad powers afforded its director. And they said flatly they would not vote to confirm a nominee until changes were made.

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller — who voted against closing debate on Cordray’s confirmation — said in a statement that Obama should have worked with the Senate to resolve differences. “I and several of my colleagues asked the president to work with Congress to reform this agency and make it accountable to the American people,” Heller said. “It’s past time for the president and the [Democratic] majority to realize the American people are tired of the bickering. They want solutions, not more political stunts.”

But the fact is, Congress already had a chance to “reform” the agency, when it was created as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in the wake of the financial crisis. The bureau’s powers were debated then, and it passed and was signed into law.

Moreover, if the GOP really wants to reform the bureau, it could introduce a bill to that effect at any time, and make the case on Capitol Hill.

Instead, Republicans resorted to a much more dangerous tactic — trying to alter administration policy by withholding consent for a well-qualified nominee. Surely, Republican leaders can see the implications of what amounts to an assault on the principle of separation of powers itself?

What’s to stop Republicans from, say, objecting to the Obama administration’s Iran policy, by refusing to confirm an undersecretary of defense for policy? What’s to stop them from demanding the administration “work with Congress” to adopt a stronger line against the Islamic state by withholding confirmation of all Pentagon appointees?

What’s to stop Republicans from trying to get another bite at the health-care apple by refusing to allow any new officials to be appointed at the Department of Health and Human Services until the administration “works with Congress” to amend the law so it’s more to their liking? The tea party might embrace this approach, but it should concern anyone who still supports constitutional governance.

And what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What if Mitt Romney gets elected in 2012, and the Senate changes hands. What’s to stop minority Democrats from denying the new president confirmation, even of Cabinet members, until they get a say in his policies? What if Democrats demanded cuts in the defense budget in exchange for consent on appointments? Since the Senate requires 60 votes to hold a vote on confirmation, Democrats could block nominations with as few as 41 members.

The policy questions surrounding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, its powers and oversight are legitimate. So is the authority of the Senate to advise and consent on presidential nominations. But what’s at issue here is the wisdom of withholding consent on what are plainly illegitimate grounds, the desire to enact legislative changes wholly outside the legislative process.

It’s not only short-sighted and ill-considered, it’s potentially dangerous. If these are the tactics that are to be employed from now on, if recess appointments are to become the norm, then our government has become even more dysfunctional than advertised.

Republicans should reconsider, at least if they value the Constitution as much as they say they do.

 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.