Iain (here and here) and Dan (here) are right to be outraged at President Obama’s brazenness (if not lawlessness) on the recess appointments, but it is not like he lacks accomplices. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has backed the president’s play, according to the Hill. Senate Democrats will no doubt echo that support.
The hypocrisy here is blatant, even by congressional standards. In 2007, Reid kept the senate in pro forma session in order to block President Bush from making recess appointments — particularly, the eminently qualified Steve Bradbury’s appointment to head DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. “I had to keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the Bradbury appointment,” Reid recounted in 2008. “That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made.
The Senate has similarly been holding pro forma sessions over the current holiday recess to keep the session technically ongoing, thus blocking — or at least they thought they were blocking — Obama, just as Bush was blocked. But Obama ignored the move, reasoning that such brief sessions (held roughly every three days and lasting only seconds) should not count. Despite the position he took during the Bush years, Reid today said, “I support President Obama’s decision.” His rationale, if you can call it that, is that while he was just trying to block recess appointments, Republicans are blocking such appointments for the specific purpose of re-legislating the Dodd-Frank law.
The theory of separation of powers is that the respective branches have a powerful incentive to protect their turf and will therefore police each other’s encroachments. Apparently … not so much. In any event, since the president is in the hardball business, he can only be stopped (or at least discouraged) if Congress uses its constitutional tools in kind. It is worth remembering that the government cannot function if the House declines to raise and spend money, and Obama cannot get anyone appointed from here on out unless the Senate, once it is in session, can muster 60 votes. So my question is: are Republicans just going to grouse about this, or are they actually going to do something about it?
> are Republicans just going to grouse about this, or are they actually going to do something about it?
The question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGive me a break. The GOP is blocking everything the President is trying to do. using the filibuster like it has never been used before. blocking appointments not because of the qualifications of the individual but because they object to the law itself. I applaud Obama for the recess appointment. It is about time he stop playing patty-cake with the GOP obstructionists that put party of country every day of the week.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"using the filibuster like it has never been used before"
Tell that to John Bolton, Miguel Estrada and Robert Bork.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseit is an empirical fact that the Republicans have filibustered Obama like no previous Senate.
External Link
Oh, and every one of the above deserved to be filibustered in my humble opinion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll three of those examples were specific objections to the individuals in question - not an attempt to subvert the authority of the cabinets or offices that the candidates would hold after confirmation. So, your answer doesn't actually address the comment you responded to at all.
And in the case of Bork, I think history has safely shown that that was a great call on the part of Senate Dems...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere have been specific problems with everyone of the men allegedly blocked by the Senate Republicans. Though it appears that the three NLRB candidates weren't nominated until Dec. 15th and Reid never even got around to scheduling a hearing, much less a vote on them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"specific objections to the individuals in question"
Yes, your right. Miguel Estrada was blocked specifically because he was a Latino (per released private democratic correspondence).
John Boltan was blocked because he would actually be the US representative to the UN and not act like the UN's representative to the US (like so many other UN ambassadors have acted).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"All three of those examples were specific objections to the individuals in question"
No genius. All three of those men were actually examples of the filibuster.
What Obama is did is appoint men who weren't filibustered.
If Harry Reid wants to hold an up or down vote, let him do that. And, if the GOP then wants to filibuster that vote, let them do that. And, if Obama wants to "override" that filibuster - at least temporarily - with a recess appointment, then let Obama do that. Unfortunately, none of that is what happened here.
Reid didn't hold a vote. The GOP didn't filibuster ANY of these nominees, and Obama didn't wait until the Senate was in recess.
But other than all that, sure - you're dead on the mark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, the Democrat objections to a Republican appointing the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice is well documented...
“[The groups] They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.”
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(Staff Memo “Re: Meeting with Civil Rights Leaders Yesterday to Discuss Judges,” Sent
to Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL), November 7, 2001).
explain the 3 NRLB appointments then ?
you do know that the man can't do his job BY LAW until confirmed by the Senate ... so the first appointment is comepletely useless ... its about politics not about running the department ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseso the Keystone Pipeline is about country over party then ? really ???
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[A]re Republicans just going to grouse about this, or are they actually going to do something about it?"
To ask the question is to answer it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease give us your insights on exactly what you believe they can do and whether it would be effective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is not curious that Senator Reid backed Obama. He is serving in this senate a function not dissimilar to that of Caligula's horse in the Roman Senate.
I sadly suspect the republicans will cave on this...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"His rationale, if you can call it that, is that while he was just trying to block recess appointments, Republicans are blocking such appointments for the specific purpose of re-legislating the Dodd-Frank law."
Well, that's absolutely the case, so I'm surprised you would disagree with his rationale. In fact, that's the STATED REASON the GOP is blocking nominees. They have publicly said that they will not allow ANY nominee to be confirmed under current law. That is an abrogation of their duties and an attempt to force changes to the law. I don't think most people find nullification to be a compelling principle for Congress to go by.
"It is worth remembering that the government cannot function if the House declines to raise and spend money, and Obama cannot get anyone appointed from here on out unless the Senate, once it is in session, can muster 60 votes."
Where exactly have you been for the last two years? This is ALREADY what is happening in the Senate! The GOP in the Senate have blocked tremendous numbers of nominations Obama has put forth - more than any Congress in history, and this after the years of calling for 'up-and-down votes only' on judges. What a sham that has turned out to be, but it was never anything more than a rhetorical tactic anyway. Keep that in mind when criticizing Reid...
I suspect Obama sincerely hopes that the House GOP does exactly what you say here. It would play into his hands strongly in the upcoming election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is not called "checks and balances" for nothing. With a scofflaw in the Red Shack (nee White House) it is to be expected that Congressional redress will be more dramatic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, I wonder why the Constitution specifically and in writing grants the Prez this ability? Perhaps because checks and balances are not intended - and never were intended - to allow the minority party of one of the Houses of Congress to keep the prez from getting people appointed in perpetuity.
But, as I said - I'm quite sure Obama hopes the GOP DOES 'bring on the drama.' It will only play to his advantage if they do so. Can't you see that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethats a great example of either your stupidity or your intellectual dishonesty,
the recess appointment power was to provide the president the ability to fill vital offices. this was due to longer travel times back when the Constitution was written. it was NEVER intended to allow the president to get around a gridlocked congress to fill spots that are not only useless but do damage to the country's economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour personal opinion that the appointment is 'useless' and will 'damage the economy' are both unfounded and immaterial to the discussion. The power exists and is enshrined in the Constitution for a reason, the prez took advantage of his duly granted authority, and the rest is just crying in beer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd the Senate is in session, your personal opinion notwithstanding.
TheFish: "I'm right, all the time, no matter how much of what I say contradicts everything else I say. If you think otherwise, it's because you're ignorant. (And probably fat.) Now, I'm going to disappear from the thread."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse