Well, I misspelled “you’re” :smack:, and I wasn’t the first poster to point out the logical error in tht thinking.
Well, there’s never been a hard definition–the branches have always worked together to avoid absurd situations like lunchtime appointments. The default has generally been ten days, I believe, which seems reasonable. The kerfuffle here is that the President has decided that pro forma sessions do not reset that ten-day clock; since the Congress has scheduled a circa month-long holiday break, that’s a recess whether they want to call it one or not. Which really doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable position.
That is not a valid analogy. I am not arguing that the president has to be able to create the circumstances that authorize the power, merely that he gets to define those circumstances.
In the case of armed insurrection, I believe (and I think you would agree) that the president has a great deal of latitude in defining what “armed insurrection” means. Certainly the population cannot rise up in rebellion and then claim that it isn’t an insurrection so the president can’t use his authority. Similarly, I believe he has a great deal of latitude in defining “recess” in the context of the Recess Appointment clause. The Senate cannot go into recess and then claim that they aren’t merely to thwart executive authority.
In both cases if the president defines “insurrection” or “recess” in a way that the public disagrees with then they can (and should) hold it against him in the following election.
Additionally, I’m sure the judicial branch can act to limit executive authority in the most extreme cases - appointing officers over lunch or using the military to put down a peaceful protest. I don’t believe that this situation rises to that level in the slightest.
Strange women in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
Couldn’t have said it better myself-they basically have given Obama no choice with their constant obstructionist tactics. Anyone have any numbers on the amount of backlogged judicial appointments?
You are, IIRC, the first person to point it out without pointing out other caveats in the same post, which is enough of “on magellan’s side” that he can safely praise it.
Entertaining, though.
There is no reason to think that, given that Congress itself has procedures to go into recess and when the clear intent of Congress is for the Senate not to be in recess.
No, I wouldn’t agree that he has “a great deal of latitude” in that case.
No. the Senate can neither confirm nor deny a recess appointment
The appointment serves until the end of the next term at which point the nomination process starts over.
Well … there is one option. Since they claim not to have recessed, they could conceivably come back to Washington early and vote on the already-submitted appointment request, since the filibuster technically just tabled that matter for future reconsideration. If they were to then fail to confirm the appointment, that conflict would almost certainly have to head straight to the Supreme Court for adjudication, wouldn’t it? If Congress really hasn’t recessed and that item of business is still open, they’d be entitled to vote on it.
Won’t happen, of course. (a) They’d have to come back early–their scheduled return date is the already-established start date for the new session, and the only business for the old session they can do that day is officially gavel it closed, I think. (b) They don’t have the votes to vote down the appointment–if they did, they wouldn’t have filibustered it in the first place. (c) If the Dems thought they did have the votes (eg. because of some defectors upset about the perceived theft of congressional authority), then they could filibuster the appointment vote, unless there were enough defectors to support a cloture vote, which would be about a third of the Democratic Senate delegation.
Come to think of it, I kind of hope it comes to that. That would be hilarious. 
Sen. McConnell: I rise to condemn the motion under the strongest possible terms, our great nation…
Sen. Reid: I rise to remind the distinguished gentleman that he is in favor of the motion.
Sen. McConnell: You sure, Harry?
Sen. Reid: You are in favor of the motion to disregard the pro forma nature of the appointment, in favor of the motion to demand a vote of approval or disapproval, and on record as refusing to allow such a motion to come to a vote.
Sen. McConnell: Thanks, Harry
Sen Reid: No problem, sugarpants.
Sen. McConnell: Not in public, Harry…
Yes…I guess they could. Let’s be honest here…there is almost no need for the President to have the ability to recess appoint. Congress is almost always in session and, if they are not, they will be in a few weeks. The purpose of the recess appointment was to allow appointments when Congress was not in session for the majority of the year. These days, with a full time congress, the recess appointment seems to only serve as a way for a President to get around Congress. Congress counters by never going on recess.
I guess I favor a stronger executive than yorick and John then. It seems completely backwards to me that the Senate could define away a presidential prerogative. To me the recess appointment clause is vitally important for the executive to be able to enforce the laws by appointing ministers when Congress is not available to provide advice and consent (which they clearly are not at the present time).
But then again, I think that the notion of filibustering executive appointments in the first place is ludicrous, so I’m glad that there is at least one tool given to POTUS to check this behavior. Doubly-so when the obstruction isn’t based on the merits of the nominee but 100% to prohibit enforcement of the law (as is the case in both the CPA and NLRB appointments).
Obviously we won’t agree on these points as I think all of the details and positions have been well laid out on both sides. We’ll just have to see what SCOTUS thinks - my bet is that they won’t interfere in what is best left a political matter.
Sure, but as people of your political persuasion are apt to say, “amend the Constitution then.”
Let’s not pretend that recess appointments are used as some emergency procedure to appoint people when congress is not available to provide advice and consent. Congress deliberately blocks certain nominees. It seems to me that waiting for a recess to make an appointment defines away Congress’ duty to advise and consent. It works both ways.
I’m for getting rid of recess appointments if we can also get rid off the ridiculous filibuster rules. Just saying you’re going to filibuster shouldn’t be enough. If you want to block a vote, break out your phone book and start fucking reading, Mr Smith.
Eh, I draw a very large distinction between “that appointee is unacceptable, choose another” and “we’re going to block ALL appointees in an effort to stop enforcement of a legally passed and entered-on-the-books law”.
I’ll be fine with stopping recess appointments when the latter position becomes liable for an obstruction of justice charge.