Recess Appointments Have The Left Outraged
Especially, Sam Fox, a man who had contributed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and was a thorn in John Kerrys side! He also appointed Andrew G. Biggs of New York to be deputy commissioner of Social Security, and Susan E. Dudley of Virginia to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the office of Management and Budget. As you can imagine, the Democrats are livid over what they view as President Bush’s illegal maneuver to bypass the Senate confirmation process and appoint controversial nominees while Congress is on recess. Just so you know, the legal definition of what he did, is recess appointments.
Much talk on the blogs today about this…your thoughts?
Captain’s Quarters, The Moderate Voice, Redstate , Riehl World View , Power Line, PoliBlog (TM), Shakesville, DownWithTyranny!, Betsy’s Page, the talking dog, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Blue Crab Boulevard, Democracy Project, CorrenteWire, Prairie Weather , TalkLeft ,The Carpetbagger Report , Balkinization , BobGeiger.com, The Raw Story, Right Wing News, Crooks and Liars, NewsHog, The Moderate Voice, Chronicle of the Conspiracy, The Reaction, Sister Toldjah, Liberal Values and The Agonist
April 5, 2007 - 08:54 AM on April 5th, 2007
It’s illegal. Bush is wrong.
Per the WaPo article:
“WASHINGTON, April 4 ” President Bush used Congress’s Easter break today to defy Democratic lawmakers and appoint three officials who have already drawn heavy criticism on Capitol Hill.”
Per findlaw article you linked:
“But a Senate ”recess” does not include holidays, or very brief temporary adjourn ments…”
Easter is a holiday.
April 5, 2007 - 08:58 AM on April 5th, 2007
I disagree. I think that if the Left wants to throw out all rules and definitions, that things like this are a perfect countrer result.
The Democrats have perverted the “Advise and Consent” to “Demand and Dictate” when it comes to political appointments.
April 5, 2007 - 09:02 AM on April 5th, 2007
2.
So, you are justifying an obvious breaking Constitional law because you view the Dems have perverted the meaning of “advise and consent”?
Sorry, but that doesn’t justify breaking the law. There’s no way around this. As the man says, justifying bad behaviour with another’s bad behaviour is no real justification.
April 5, 2007 - 09:04 AM on April 5th, 2007
Peejz.
For some reason, I can’t post in the “Rove Derangement Syndrome Gets The best of The Leftist Blogs..They Got Punked (They Are The April Fool’s)” thread. I’ve attempted it 5 times now.
April 5, 2007 - 09:14 AM on April 5th, 2007
Ted, their recess’ fall on holidays, and he is within his constitutional power to do this.
In Article II, the Constitution gives the President the power to “nominate, and by and with the Advice of the Senate appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.”
But just after that clause, it also gives the President the power to “fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” Since these appointments occur while the Senate is in recess, they obviously are designed also to occur without the Senate’s advice or consent, that is, without Senate confirmation.
The Senate is on recess at this time.
From the WaPo article
espite the Democrats’ objections, under the Constitution the recess appointees may serve until as late as January 2009 — effectively until the end of the Bush presidency.
April 5, 2007 - 09:19 AM on April 5th, 2007
4- I tested and was able to leave a comment. It is slow because it is getting hit by alot of viewers….angry viewers that don’t see the humor of the joke that was played on them.
April 5, 2007 - 09:30 AM on April 5th, 2007
Somehow the apostrophe from “Kerrys” fell down and attached itself to “recess’.”
If you’re going to dedicate so much time to writing, it might behoove you to learn how to write.
Fox wasn’t up for confirmation. Therefore he wasn’t eligible for a recess appointment. Furthermore, it is illegal for Fox to work voluntarily for the State Department. It is also illegal for him to receive compensation as a recess appointment. Bush will have no opton but to revoke the appointment.
Fox won’t be in Belgium long enough to enjoy a waffle.
April 5, 2007 - 09:39 AM on April 5th, 2007
7- You might want to learn how to read. Fox was up for confirmation, Kerry grilled him on his donations to the SBVFT, and Bush pulled him late last week. So yes, he was up for confirmation.
From the cited WaPo article:
The committee was about to vote on Fox’s nomination last week — and was almost certain to reject it — when Bush pulled it back. Since the nomination was not before the Senate, the White House said Fox, who is a wealthy developer in St. Louis, will serve without pay in his post, although some Democrats had suggested that may not be permissible.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said yesterday that he will ask the Government Accountability Office for a ruling on the legality of the unusual appointment, which he called “an abuse of executive authority.”
April 5, 2007 - 09:57 AM on April 5th, 2007
I think it is great that Bush is angering the Dems. I’d do it regularly. I’d get them so worked up, so angry, so emotional, that they are in constant react mode. Then they won’t have time to concoct any more manufactured scandals.
April 5, 2007 - 10:05 AM on April 5th, 2007
OK, since you comprehend about as well as you punctuate, let me spell it out for you: Fox was not up for confirmation at the time he was appointed. Bush withdrew the nomination. The passage you quoted establishes this. Thus, the question is, how does Bush make a recess appointment of someone who was no longer nominated for the position?
As you didn’t address the other points, I assume you’ll be updating your post so as not to mislead your 30 or so readers.
April 5, 2007 - 10:08 AM on April 5th, 2007
10- obviously you are the only one that doesn’t seem to get it and needs updates..Everyone else follows the links provided.
I think we just found the child left behind.
April 5, 2007 - 10:12 AM on April 5th, 2007
Just where does it say that a person appointed during a Recess has to be a current nominee before the Senate??? I think that condition is just a custom, not Constitutional Law. Just as it is CUSTOM to nominate lawyers to the Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution stating that a Supreme Court Judge must have a law degree or legal training.
April 5, 2007 - 10:15 AM on April 5th, 2007
When one side consistently won’t play by the rules, then there are no rules. It’s a street fight, and after the Democrites kick Bush in the groin, all rules are out the window.
April 5, 2007 - 10:47 AM on April 5th, 2007
5.
No, you’ve read it wrong.
According to Findlaw, the President can appoint during a recess. However, a recess does not include a holiday. I quoted that in my post #1: “But a Senate ‘’recess” does not include holidays, or very brief temporary adjourn ments:—
Easter is a holiday and thus Bush should not be able to make any appointments.
April 5, 2007 - 10:58 AM on April 5th, 2007
re 6:
Still won’t let me post. I enter the text, it goes through the motions but nothing shows up on the thread.
April 5, 2007 - 11:00 AM on April 5th, 2007
14- I read it correctly. Since around the 30’s, a recess is basically scheduled around holidays..prior to that, very little was done in the summer months due to to the heat(therefore was considered the recess). Much debate has been ongoing as to what constitutes a break or recess, but this is how it has been done. He didn’t do anything that his predecessors didn’t also do.
A short recess in todays language would constitute a one day government holiday.
April 5, 2007 - 11:12 AM on April 5th, 2007
“He didn’t do anything that his predecessors didn’t also do.”
Can you provide some n on-Bush examples of this? I read findlaw (and it’s footnotes) to mean during recesses scheduled around holidays (such as this one scheduled around Easter and Passover) the President could not make appointments. If this were allowed as you say, then any President could make any such appointments that he wished without Congressional overview. The Constitutional Amendment would be rendered worthless and the spirit of this law broken.
April 5, 2007 - 11:28 AM on April 5th, 2007
17- Are the holidays spelled out in the COTUS? No. So for the examples you want:
here is a link which lists many but in particular this passage as it pertains to xmas:
December 27, 2000, recess appointment of Roger Gregory
Now, Daschle did try to stop Bush at one point, because he knew it was legal for Bush to appoint during XMas break:
Majority Leader Tom Daschle may not adjourn the Senate during the Christmas holiday in an attempt to prevent the White House from installing some of its blocked nominees through recess appointments.
Republicans say the White House is considering a procedural move to bypass the Democrat-controlled Senate to get President Bush’s administrative team in place.
The first recess appointment under consideration is Eugene Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as Labor Department solicitor.
Mr. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, was blocking that nomination and suggested this week he would keep the Senate in a pro forma session through January and not grant the yearly holiday to prevent the appointment.
The POTUS can use this particular power at anytime the Senate is on recess.
April 5, 2007 - 11:30 AM on April 5th, 2007
Ted, you would be hard pressed to get either side to change this because both sides use it to their full advantage. Sometimes it is a good person getting appointed and other times not…but that is how the law is being used.
April 5, 2007 - 11:38 AM on April 5th, 2007
18.
Thanks for the links Peejz. Holidays are not defined by the Constitution, however Congress does define Federal Holidays.
Other than that, I see the precedent there. I stand corrected.
Re 19:
Being a strict Constitutional Interpretist, I see the action as being illegal. It doesn’t appear that the action has been challenged and taken to court though, and it appears that it never would be. That being the case, it will be allowed…unfortunately.
I see it as abuse of the law.
I would love to see the Dems take this to the SCOTUS though. I don’t see how they can rule it as otherwise, as it is clearly defined.
April 5, 2007 - 01:26 PM on April 5th, 2007
In essence, it is abuse of power. As I said, neither will fully press the issue because they use the system.
April 5, 2007 - 02:39 PM on April 5th, 2007
You folks on the right are fun. Kinda like playing with the cat with a laser pointer.
IOKIYAR!
April 5, 2007 - 07:40 PM on April 5th, 2007
“The President shall have the power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” Article II, Section 2, US Constitution
Exactly how does a recess appointment not be a recess appointment when the Senate is not in session?
” …. party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as well as those who oppose the right side of a question.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #1.
Isn’t it amazing that Alexander Hamilton so accurately described exactly the motives for so many of the recent actions taken by the Democratic Party that many year ago?
When has it EVER been acceptable for a political party to demand an apology for a political donation from a nominee before allowing his appointment to go through?
Damn I wish I could get that Poli Sci and history degree to make me money versus just help me refute baseless arguments.