Who would he argue that to?
Resigning during a recess in order to avoid having to go through an honest confirmation would be the worst kind of partisan game-playing and Justice O’Connor has never seemed to be the sort who would ever be a part of something that sleazy and classless- especially since it would only work temporarily anyway.
Now you’re verging into coup d’etat territory. The president might control the FBI and the Army but he most emphatically does not control the judiciary. If he tried what you’re suggesting, even Pubs would start screaming for his impeachment.
“Nice Supreme Court office you’ve got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.”
Note the smiley. Here’s another one, in case you missed it. 
The operative word in your post being “honest”. I suspect that O’Conner would consider Alito fully qualified to serve on the SC. She might very well see that the Dems will never confirm a legitimate, conservative replacement. As for the Dems, they’ll have to decide if they want to go into the midterm elections with a SC seat unfilled.
Now, disrobe so we can strip search you!!
You really need to take a high school government class. I’m stunned that you could be this misinformed. The President absolutely does NOT control the Judicial Branch of government. There are THREE (3) equal branches of government, the Executive Branch (that’s the prez), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the Judicial Branch. All three branches have equal authority. Each operates independently from the other two (although each has some checks on the other two). The President has no more authority over SC Justices than he does over the Representative from North Dakota. The POTUS absolutely no authority whatsoever over SCOTUS. I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. I’ve never once though you were anything close to being either unintelligent or uneducated, so I really am surprised.
Oh, and FYI, Federal Law enforcement and the Judiciary are two different things.
They just got done confirming a conservative Chief Justice and it remains to be seen whether Alito is “legitimate.”
Anyway, the only way there could be a recess appointment is if O’Connor resigned outright. There’s absolutely nothing the president can do to make her resign except sweet talk her into it. The Supreme court is a lifetime appointment, the only way someone can be removed involuntarily would be impeachment by congress.
So it would be totally up to O’Connor if she thought a filibuster of Alito’s confirmation was so outrageous that she’d resign immediately so Bush could do a recess apointment. Although she was appointed by Reagan, I don’t think she’s that partisan, she’d probably be OK with waiting for another appointment.
And it is far more likely that the Republican controlled Senate would try to do away with the filibuster rather than have Bush do a one-off recess appointment. Better still would be to make hay over how undemocratic the Dems are, not to allow a vote…and make them actually filibuster. See who blinks first. If Alito doesn’t look unqualified to the American public in the hearings, I think the filibuster would be a huge political liability for the Democrats.
the constitution that says she serves for life.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You really need to take a high school government class…[/QUOTE
You need to get a sense of humor.
Look, I made a joke about what Bush might do, by way of conceded that **BG **had produced a cite about O’Conner’s resignation that upheld his claim and refuted mine. Then **BG **and you took it seriously, so I figured if you wanted to take the joke further, I would, too.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You really need to take a high school government class…
[/QUOTE
You need to get a sense of humor.
Look, I made a joke about what Bush might do, by way of conceded that **BG **had produced a cite about O’Conner’s resignation that upheld his claim and refuted mine. Then **BG **and you took it seriously, so I figured if you wanted to take the joke further, I would, too.[/QUOTE]
I guess I got whooshed then. Sorry. Like I said, I thought it seemed like an uncharacteristically uneducated comment from you.
On reflection I made a mistake there, at least WRT dates. Assuming a “recess appointment” were possible (e.g., if O’Connor were to die or have a stroke), Bush could not make it until after the Senate’s current session ends. That’s set for a “Target Adjournment Date” of October 6. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/two_column_table/2006_Schedule.htm And then would be the midterm elections, but while that was going on Bush could make a recess appointment, and then Alito could serve until the next Senate session adjourned. But then he would be out, unless there had been a confirmation vote.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You really need to take a high school government class…
[/QUOTE
You need to get a sense of humor.
Look, I made a joke about what Bush might do, by way of conceded that **BG **had produced a cite about O’Conner’s resignation that upheld his claim and refuted mine. Then **BG **and you took it seriously, so I figured if you wanted to take the joke further, I would, too.[/QUOTE]
Good one. But then, you had been so stubborn in clinging to that “recess appointment” idea that that your whoosh looked serious.
Fair enough but I wonder if this amounts to the same thing as the common response posed to people who ask, “What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors” when wondering what the President has to do to get impeached. The answer frequently given around here is, “It means whatever Congress says it means.”
So too with appointments. While we can see the intent in the Federalist paper you cited there really is no recourse if the Senate wants to turn down whatever nomination they feel like for whatever reason.
When it comes to most appointments I can agree with what Hamilton was on about. However, while it may not be supported in the Constitution explicitly I think the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a different creature. It is a life appointment and cannot be undone. Future presidents can replace ambassadors but are stuck with the choices of previous presidents sitting on the Supreme Court. It is also the most powerful position the President gets to appoint.
Given that I still think it very appropriate that the Senate takes a long, hard look at a candidate rather than just giving the nod to whomever the president sends them.
In the case of Alito before us I think he probably would make a fine Supreme Court nominee based upon his resume and character (from what I have seen). However, I do not like the Supreme Court balance with him on it. Again is that enough for Democrats to fight the good fight to keep him out? I’m not sure and frankly I wonder what good it would do anyway. Bush still has plenty of time in office yet and can throw much worse than Alito before the country. I seriously doubt the dems can oppose this nomination much less do it several times.
Much as I hate to say it Bush will get his court and the country will be stuck with it for many years…long after Bush is a distant bad memory. In light of that Alito may be about as good as can be hoped for…I shudder to think of Harriet Miers up there instead.
I’m more of an old-school conservative (AKA, hate Bush, yet Republican, yet voted begrudgingly Democrat last election :mad: , Where’s McCain!!!, Powell!!!, the real heros!!!). I am usually skeptical of any suggestion, information or nomination that comes from the Bushie white-house, but I listened to the session today and I have to say, I was impressed. I believe Alito may be another other rare old-school conservative that I think I could respect, give or take a few scattered opinions (eg, possibly the executive powers cr@p).
I was especially interested in his answers on prisoner treatment and torture. He also is obviously very experienced and can peacefully talk his way out of a frontal attack. I do worry a little that he’s really a closet Neo-con and he’s holding back… Maybe we’ll know after many pummelings.
I am still very unhappy that Roberts was allowed to take the lead position in the supreme court with very little judging experience (< 3 years) - his oppointment is ok (it could have been worse), but he still scares me. He’s an even primer candidate for Neo-con, I know a few Opus Dei - fine people to talk to, but on the supreme court, whew, I donno.
Good cr@p :smack: … The last one was me. GTA was visiting, on my computer and left herself logged in again… sorry.
I tend to agree with your analysis. Note also that Scalia (another “old school conservative”) has been the most vocal about limiting Bush’s power to detain people without charging them. Read his opinion in Hamdi.
Not that I care about this much, but I don’t think Roberts is a member of Opus Dei. Where did you get that? I think he might send his kids to a school run by memebers of that organization, but I don’t think he belongs. Got a cite for that?
So far, nothing I’ve seen from Alito suggests to me that he’s worth the political costs of fillibustering. If the court strikes down Roe, fine. We need to fight this one out as a nation.
**Whack-a-Mole ** - As you say, that the discussion behind the “advise and consent” provision is binding on anyone. The Senate can vote however it wants for whatever reasons. I agree with you that Supreme Court nominations are vastly more important than those for second assistant under-secretary of whatever, and they have always been treated that way. In addition, Hamilton recognized and discussed the fact that politics would inevitably be a part of advice and consent. I cited the Federalist because that is part of the basis for my belief that the president should get approval for any reasonable and qualified nominee.
No, it’s not, at least in any effective sense. Recess appointments assume their duties more or less immediately. An appointed vice president would take office only after approval by both houses. The amendment says:
So, between the appointment and the confirmation, the office would be vacant.