Basically, “We’re not in recess, and I hope we can take care of this when we return.”
Return from what?
That quote is pretty damn hilarious, IMO. Talk about “passing the smell test”.
What? Are you playing games? Show me where and how I’ve expanded the use of the term from those offered in the dictionary.
I have been wondering why Boehner hasn’t been all over the news complaining about the recess appointments. I’ve seen surrogates such as Senator Cornyn and a miscellany of smaller fry politicians, but not Boehner (or Cantor, for that matter).
Either those guys are on vacation or it was their screw up. I bet we will see Boehner on his way out soon.
The writers of the Constitution recognized that sometimes, the Senate would not be able to confirm any appointments, but that the business of government must meanwhile continue. And so they gave the President the power of recess appointments. The Senate is currently not able to confirm any appointments, and so the President is using the power the Constitution granted to him for just such an occasion. It’s no fault of Obama’s that the reason they’re currently unable to confirm appointments is that a party of obstructionist idiots is wholeheartedly preventing it.
Am I correct in assuming that if the Senate asserts its confirmation rights over a recess appointment, it has every right to do so, but the filibuster option becomes more or less moot?
Because he’s not an idiot and realizes that complaining that Obama went over his head to appoint a commissioner to protect consumer interests against Wall Street is not particularly good politics when Wall Street is perhaps the only institution more hated than your own?
Exactly. “I’m shocked, shocked to discover there’s gambling going on here!”
How ludicrous, and how much more perfectly clear that the extant sessions are sham.
You’re looking to draw a bright line, and there is no way to do that; the answer is that the totality of the circumstances would determine whether a session is genuine or a sham.
The recess appointment is good through the end of the NEXT session so the nominee may have up to 2 years before they are confirmed/denied. That makes a lot of issues moot.
I thought this story was relevant: [Justice Dept says recent recess appointments legal
I know that’s pretty much what people have been saying here, but the Justice Dept. has people who’s job it is to think about this and advise the president.
I looked for an online version of the document, but so far all I’ve found are news stories and blogs about it.
I found it, courtesy of the New York Times.
No doubt, but not quite what I’m asking about. The nomination was not confirmed because the Pubbies refused to allow it to go forward, using the filibuster threat. So, he is serving on a provisional basis, yes? The Senate can still insist upon its power of approval. Presumably, the Dems will have no good reason to do so, so if anybody is going to demand it, it would have to be Republicans.
So, it occurs to me that the Pubbies are in rather a cleft stick. In chess terms, they’re forked.
If they insist on voting upon the nomination, they can hardly threaten to filibuster approval. And if its a majority vote, they most likely lose.
I don’t understand this point. The power to recess appoint does not mean the power to define recess…at least in my mind. “Within the bounds of reason” also seems very slippery and ill-defined. Could the president recess appoint when the senate is at lunch? I realize this scenario is absurd but I am pointing out that a hard definition is necessary. I assume that the power to define “recess” belongs to the legislative branch.
No. He would have to wait until after lunch, when they are playing during recess.
Nap time is, of course, right out!
So, in your opinion, the Senate could declare that they are never in recess (even without pro-forma sessions) and nullify completely the Recess Appointment Clause? This seems untenable, which is the primary reason I come to the position I do.
As to your counter-example (POTUS recess-appointing over lunch), I would argue that he could potentially do that, and if he did the remedy is political not judicial. This doesn’t violate the Senate’s advise and consent power, as they could always consider and vote on the nominee before it got to that point. The fact that they refuse to hold a vote is them declining to use their power, not POTUS usurping it. That said, recess appointing during a time when the Senate is actually available to provide “advice and consent” is materially different from appointing during a period when they are not.
To me, POTUS leads the executive and this includes appointing ministers, justices, etc. If POTUS nominates or appoints inadequate or improper ministers then he will be punished by the voters. I felt this way under Bush as well, before the “tu qoque’s” start flying in. Filibustering executive appointments is, to me, a violation of the original intent of “advise and consent”. It’s within the Senate’s right to do so, but I find it hard to take their complaints seriously when POTUS uses the recess appointment power.
But if couldn’t do it over lunch, how about at 3:AM when they’re all sound asleep? Or how about over the course of a weekend? The point is that there needs to be some agreement on what constitutes them being in recess. Right? And they had that agreement: three days. Obama AGREED to that timeframe, and then went and just ignored it.
Again, your stuck on the idea that the President must be able to use this authority sometime, since it’s given to him explicitly in the Constitution. But the Constitution does not require the Senate to recess anymore than it requires the populace to take up armed insurrection so that the President can exercise his authority to suspend habeas corpus during such times.
Excellent point.