The Latest Republican huff over a recess appointment.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/108931-gop-retaliates-for-berwick-recess-appointment-to-medicare-leadership-post

Is there anything about this particular recess appointment that is very very different than other recess appointments other than the fact that it denies the Republicans to try and have the health care debate all over again?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Meh…usual Republican bluster and grandstanding.

If they want to exercise their power to consent to nominees then they need to have the actual hearings and vote on people. If they play the perpetual obstructionist (as they have been to a degree never before seen) then tough…Obama will use the recess appointment.

Not as if other presidents haven’t used it. Happens often enough with all of them whatever stripe they may be. Generally not a really big deal.

[Mr_Smashy]

Whichever party isn’t in power always bitches about it, to wit:

April 5, 2007
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, today sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that they look into the legality of the President’s recess appointment of Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium. The Administration withdrew Mr. Fox’s nomination before the Foreign Relations Committee on March 28, and yesterday gave him a recess appointment. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Robert Casey (D-PA) joined Sen. Dodd on the letter.

“It’s clear that the Administration once again has decided to sidestep Congress by sending an individual to represent our country who does not have the support of the United States Senate,” Dodd said. “It was clear that the Foreign Relations Committee would not have advanced Mr. Fox’s nomination. Instead of withdrawing the nomination and proposing someone who would further our international ties and relationships, the Administration decided to proceed with a maneuver that is deceptive at best and illegal at worst.”

Looks like Bush did it 171 times, Obama’s up to number 15. BFD.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Whack-a-Mole

Meh…usual Republican bluster and grandstanding.

If they want to exercise their power to consent to nominees then they need to have the actual hearings and vote on people. If they play the perpetual obstructionist (as they have been to a degree never before seen) then tough…Obama will use the recess appointment.

Not as if other presidents haven’t used it. Happens often enough with all of them whatever stripe they may be. Generally not a really big deal.

An honest question here:

I know that you are using this as a vehicle to take a shot at the GOP, SOP, but is there actual evidence that the Republicans have somehow obstructed this nomination? If so, how, specifically? Have they filibustered it? If not, since there are more Dems in both the Senate and on that committee, what have the Republicans done?

This blog entry speaks to “Republican obstruction bypassed”, but then just goes into why an honest discussion of his candidacy would have been used to whip up fervor against ObamaCare. To me, this obviously isn’t obstruction - it’s debate over the role of CMS, and the biggest program to be passed in the last 20 years.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Mr_Smashy

An honest question here:

I know that you are using this as a vehicle to take a shot at the GOP, SOP, but is there actual evidence that the Republicans have somehow obstructed this nomination? If so, how, specifically? Have they filibustered it? If not, since there are more Dems in both the Senate and on that committee, what have the Republicans done?

Well, there are things like this:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening.

SOURCE: Category: DC - TPM – Talking Points Memo

Or this:

Q: How many of President Bush’s nominees have been kept waiting? How many have been confirmed?

The president’s nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats’ use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.

<snip>

With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats.

SOURCE: Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster : NPR

Sure both sides of the aisle have done and will continue to do this. Seems to me republicans do it considerably more however.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Mr_Smashy

An honest question here:

I know that you are using this as a vehicle to take a shot at the GOP, SOP, but is there actual evidence that the Republicans have somehow obstructed this nomination? If so, how, specifically? Have they filibustered it? If not, since there are more Dems in both the Senate and on that committee, what have the Republicans done?

EDIT of my above post: I did not answer the question with what I had written.

Near as I can tell in this case Obama sidestepped Congress as the Republicans probably wanted this nomination process to be on TV.

Hard for me to get fussed about it though. What Obama did is legal and given overt obstruction practically everywhere else hard for me to worry about this one.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Seems to me republicans do it considerably more however.

This is a claim I’d like to see a cite for.

[yorick73]

At least one Dem, Max Baucus, is also pissed about sidestepping the Senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/107417-mcconnell-berwick-recess-appointment-is-truly-outrageous

Although both sides always criticize recess appointments, Berwick has not been vetted by the finance panel. They had not even scheduled a hearing on Berwick yet. Now, that being said, I don’t know if this differs from past recess appointments. The ones I remember did have hearings but were blocked by the senate.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

This is a claim I’d like to see a cite for.

My cite is in post #5.

I cannot find pure stats on this (my Google-fu is failing me) but between Clinton and Bush at least seemed a lot more of Clinton’s nominations were blocked. I can’t imagine things have improved with Obama (and I noted one senator single-handedly blocked 70 Obama nominations in one go for awhile).

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

My cite is in post #5.

I cannot find pure stats on this (my Google-fu is failing me) but between Clinton and Bush at least seemed a lot more of Clinton’s nominations were blocked. I can’t imagine things have improved with Obama (and I noted one senator single-handedly blocked 70 Obama nominations in one go for awhile).

The reason I asked for a cite was to explore the comment - now made twice - that more of Clinton’s were blocked; in other words, that while both sides do it, Republicans are the more egregious offenders. Perhaps I’m missing it, but nothing in post #5 addresses that.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

The reason I asked for a cite was to explore the comment - now made twice - that more of Clinton’s were blocked; in other words, that while both sides do it, Republicans are the more egregious offenders. Perhaps I’m missing it, but nothing in post #5 addresses that.

*President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats’ use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.

With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats."*

So, 10 Bush nominees were held back and 60 Clinton nominees were blocked. That may not tell the whole story as there are other nominations besides judges but it is certainly suggestive and based on that, if I were a betting man, I would bet the republicans do block more often than democrats.

I am still looking for hard numbers but cannot find any so far.

[yorick73]

@Whack-a-Mole

*President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats’ use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.

With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats."*

So, 10 Bush nominees were held back and 60 Clinton nominees were blocked. That may not tell the whole story as there are other nominations besides judges but it is certainly suggestive and based on that, if I were a betting man, I would bet the republicans do block more often than democrats.

I am still looking for hard numbers but cannot find any so far.

Well, here’s some info from Wikipedia: George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

@Wikipedia

During President George W. Bush’s two term tenure in office, he nominated thirty-nine people for twenty-seven different federal appellate judgeships that were blocked by the Senate Democrats either directly in the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor using a filibuster.[1] Republicans labeled it an unwarranted obstruction of professionally qualified judicial nominees[2].Three of the nominees who were not processed (Paul S. Diamond, Loretta A. Preska and Philip P. Simon) were nominated after July 1, 2008, the traditional start date of the unofficial Thurmond Rule during a presidential election year. The Republicans claim that Senate Democrats of the 110th Congress on purpose tried to keep open particular judgeships as a political maneuver to allow a future Democratic president to fill them. Of the twenty-seven seats in question, nine were filled with the original Bush nominee, seven were eventually filled with different Bush nominees, seven have been filled with Democratic nominees by President Barack Obama and four are still open.

During his presidency, Bush also nominated 23 people for 23 different federal district judgeships who were never confirmed by the United States Senate.

[puddleglum]

The difference with the this one is that normally recess appointment happen because the opposition in congress refuses to hold hearings on the appointment. This one happened because the opposition in congress was too eager to have hearings and the nominee would have had to answer some inconvenient questions.

[yorick73]

@puddleglum

The difference with the this one is that normally recess appointment happen because the opposition in congress refuses to hold hearings on the appointment. This one happened because the opposition in congress was too eager to have hearings and the nominee would have had to answer some inconvenient questions.

I think you hit the nail on the head!

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

*President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats’ use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.

With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats."*

So, 10 Bush nominees were held back and 60 Clinton nominees were blocked. That may not tell the whole story as there are other nominations besides judges but it is certainly suggestive and based on that, if I were a betting man, I would bet the republicans do block more often than democrats.

I am still looking for hard numbers but cannot find any so far.

But those sixty nominees under Clinton aren’t named – the source for that number is “according to Democrats.”

Here is a list of every blocked Bush federal appeals court nominee:

[ul]
[li]First Circuit (1) - Rhode Island seat formerly Bruce Selya - William E. Smith[/li][li]Second Circuit (1)- New York seat formerly Chester Straub - Loretta Preska [/li][li]Third Circuit - (3) New Jersey seat formerly Samuel Alito - Shalom D. Stone [/li][li]Third Circuit - Pennsylvania seat formerly Franklin Van Antwerpen - Gene Pratter, then Paul Diamond [/li][li]Fourth Circuit - (8) Maryland seat formerly Francis Murnaghan Jr. - Claude Allen, then Rod Rosenstein[/li][li]Fourth Circuit - North Carolina seat formerly James Phillips Jr. - Terrence Boyle, then Robert J. Conrad[/li][li]Fourth Circuit - South Carolina seat formerly William Wilkins - Steve Matthews[/li][li]Fourth Circuit - Virginia seat formerly H. Emory Widener - William J. Haynes, II, then E. Duncan Getchell, then Glen E. Conrad [/li][li]Fifth Circuit (3 or 4) - Mississippi seat, converted from a Louisiana seat held by Henry Politz - Charles W. Pickering, then Michael B. Wallace, then Leslie H. Southwick [/li][li]Fifth Circuit - Texas seat formerly William Garwood - Priscilla Owen*[/li][li]Sixth Circuit (5 or 7) - Michigan seat formerly James Ryan - Henry Saad[/li][li]Sixth Circuit - Michigan seat formerly Richard Suhrheinrich - David W. McKeague*[/li][li]Sixth Circuit - Michigan seat formerly Damon Keith - Richard Griffin*[/li][li]Sixth Circuit - Michigan seat formerly Cornelia Kennedy - Susan Bieke Neilson, then Stephen J. Murphy III[/li][li]Sixth Circuit - Ohio seat formerly David Nelson - Jeffrey Sutton [/li][li]Sixth Circuit - Ohio seat formerly Alan Norris - Deborah Cook[/li][li]Seventh Circuit (1) - Indiana seat formerly Kenneth Ripple - Philip Simon [/li][li]Ninth Circuit (3) - California seat formerly James Browning - Carolyn Kuhl [/li][li]Ninth Circuit - California seat formerly Stephen Trott - Randy Smith [/li][li]Ninth Circuit - Idaho seat formerly Thomas Nelson - William Myers III [/li][li]Tenth Circuit (2) - Oklahoma seat formerly Stephanie Seymour - James Payne, then Jerome Holmes [/li][li]Eleventh Circuit (1 or 2) - Alabama seat formerly Emmett Cox - William Steele, then William Pryor*[/li][li]DC Circuit (3 or 5) - seat formerly of Patricia Wald - Miguel Estrada [/li][li]DC Circuit - seat formerly James Buckley - John Roberts [/li][li]DC Circuit - seat formerly Stephen Williams - Janice Rogers Brown*[/li][li]DC Circuit - seat formerly Laurence Silberman - Brett Kavanaugh*[/li][li]DC Circuit - seat formerly John Roberts - Pete Keisler[/li][/ul]

The asterisk represents a judge confirmed under the “Gang of 14” compromise. In my view, it’s fair to count them, since the Democrats blocked them, but I agree the case can be made not not counting them, so I have broken them out.

Still, that’s 31 names, 31 verifiable cases of blocked appeals court nominees by Democrats under Clinton. If you add in the ones the Democrats “agreed to” under the Gang of 14 deal, that’s 6 more, for a total of 37.

So – there’s my cite and my argument. Find me the actual names that were supposedly blocked under Clinton, and then let’s see where we stand.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Whack-a-Mole

I am still looking for hard numbers but cannot find any so far.

Well, I found these numbers (in a chart I cannot easily copy here).

Caveats:

1. Yes, I am aware the source is biased. That said I presume the numbers are accurate. Best I could find so far.

2. Only deals with judicial nominations and not cabinet positions.

3. Not quite clear what the two different charts are telling us.

Anyway, it looks like Bush the Elder may have more blocked than Clinton. Clinton is well below Reagan and Bush the Younger. Averaged among all of them (Republicans and Democrats) and it is clear Reps block these things more than Dems.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

So – there’s my cite and my argument. Find me the actual names that were supposedly blocked under Clinton, and then let’s see where we stand.

I’m looking for the list and note you are restricting this to the Appeals court (why I do not know). Why not all judicial nominations?

As backup in the meantime perhaps you will accept a cite with multiple cites in it:

While MSNBC noted on January 14 that the Democratic senators’ use of the filibuster to block nominees has been “the most aggressive use of that tactic in Senate history,” the Republican-controlled Senate blocked up-or-down votes on far more Clinton nominees than the number of Bush nominees the Democrats filibustered, and, in most cases, even denied them hearings and committee votes. As The Christian Science Monitor noted on May 12, 2003, “some 60 Clinton nominees never had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” which served “as effective a block to confirmation as a filibuster,” according to Democrats. Similarly, as The Washington Post reported on September 5, 2003, “Senate Republicans enraged Democrats by bottling up about 60 of President Bill Clinton’s nominees.”

SOURCE: http://mediamatters.org/research/200502180004

[Jas09]

@Bricker

So – there’s my cite and my argument. Find me the actual names that were supposedly blocked under Clinton, and then let’s see where we stand.

It seems likely you already know the answer, since you are limiting it to appellate court nominations. The names are:

@wikipedia

* United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
      o Robert Raymar (of New Jersey), to seat vacated by H. Lee Sarokin - Judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Maryanne Trump Barry.
      o Stephen Orlofsky (of New Jersey), to seat vacated by Morton Ira Greenberg - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Michael Chertoff.
      o Robert J. Cindrich (of Pennsylvania), to seat vacated by Timothy K. Lewis - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee D. Brooks Smith.

* United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
      o Andre M. Davis (of Maryland), to seat vacated by Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr. - Davis was nominated on October 6, 2000, during the final months of the Clinton presidency. The Senate took no action on the nomination, which was returned to the President on December 15, 2000. After Clinton's unsuccessful nomination of Davis, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully nominated Claude Allen and Rod J. Rosenstein to succeed Judge Murnaghan. Davis was renominated to the same seat by President Barack Obama in April 2009 and confirmed that year in November.
      o James A. Beaty, Jr. (of North Carolina), to seat vacated by James Dickson Phillips, Jr. - Judgeship never filled by any Bush nominee and is still open.
      o James A. Wynn, Jr. (of North Carolina), to seat vacated by James Dickson Phillips, Jr. - Judgeship never filled by any Bush nominee and is still open; Wynn was renominated by President Barack Obama to the same seat in November 2009.
      o S. Elizabeth Gibson (of North Carolina), to seat vacated by Samuel James Ervin III - Gibson was nominated on October 26, 2000, during the final months of the Clinton presidency. The Senate took no action on the nomination, which was returned to the President on December 15, 2000. The judgeship was later filled by Bush nominee Allyson Kay Duncan.
      o J. Rich Leonard (of North Carolina), to newly created seat - Judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Roger Gregory (of Virginia) after being renominated by Bush in 2001.

* United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
      o Alston Johnson (of Louisiana), to seat vacated by John Malcolm Duhé, Jr. - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Edith Brown Clement.
      o Jorge Rangel (of Texas), to seat vacated by William Lockhart Garwood - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Priscilla Owen.
      o Enrique Moreno (of Texas), to seat vacated by William Lockhart Garwood - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Priscilla Owen.

* United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
      o Helene White (of Michigan), to seat vacated by Damon Keith - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Richard A. Griffin; White was eventually confirmed to the Sixth Circuit when renominated by Bush in 2008.
      o Kathleen McCree Lewis (of Michigan), to seat vacated by Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Susan Bieke Neilson.
      o Kent Markus (of Ohio), to seat vacated by David Aldrich Nelson - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Jeffrey S. Sutton.

* United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
      o Bonnie Campbell (of Iowa), to seat vacated by George Gardner Fagg - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Michael J. Melloy.

* United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
      o James Ware (of California), to seat vacated by J. Clifford Wallace - Judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Kim McLane Wardlaw.
      o Barry Goode (of California), to seat vacated by Charles E. Wiggins - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Carlos T. Bea.
      o James E. Duffy, Jr. (of Hawaii), to seat vacated by Cynthia Holcomb Hall (of California) - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Richard Clifton (of Hawaii).

* United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
      o James Lyons (of Colorado), to seat vacated by John Carbone Porfilio - Lyons was nominated on September 22, 1999. Both Senators from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard, were members of the Republican Party. Senator Campbell was supportive of the Lyons nomination, but Allard withheld his support and described Lyons as a "political operative" due to his representation of the Clintons during Whitewater. Lyons' nomination was withdrawn on June 6, 2000. Clinton subsequently nominated Christine Arguello, also unsuccessfully. The judgeship was later filled by Bush nominee Timothy M. Tymkovich.
      o Christine Arguello (of Colorado), to seat vacated by John Carbone Porfilio - Arguello was nominated on July 27, 2000, shortly after Clinton withdrew his earlier nomination of James Lyons. The Senate took no action on the nomination, which was returned to the President on December 15, 2000. The judgeship was later filled by Bush nominee Timothy M. Tymkovich. Arguello was eventually confirmed to a district court seat when nominated by Bush in 2008.

* United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
      o Charles "Bud" Stack (of Florida), to seat vacated by Peter T. Fay - Judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Stanley Marcus.

* United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
      o Elena Kagan (of the District of Columbia), to seat vacated by James L. Buckley - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee John G. Roberts, Jr.
      o Allen Snyder (of Maryland), to seat vacated by Patricia Wald - Judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Thomas B. Griffith.

That is 23 people blocked for 20 posts. There were an additional 45 blocked for 42 district courts. The corresponding count for Bush Jr. was 23 judges blocked for 23 district court seats. to go along with the 31/37 you mentioned for appeals courts.

I particularly like that Elena Kagan was blocked for that DC seat, only for Bush to fill it by John Roberts. Now they can sit next to each other.

Cite: Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

Yeah, I know, bad bad Wiki cite.

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

This is a claim I’d like to see a cite for.

You want a cite for Whack-a-Mole’s opinion? :eek:

Here you go.

(One of the few instances where “my post is my cite” is a valid response – presuming Whack-a-Mole is being honest about his opinion, of course.

[What_the]

@yorick73

I think you hit the nail on the head!

I think so too… and it is very likely to be ignored by the usuals here.

Are there any other examples of a recess appointment being made before the opposition made any effort to obstruct?