[arrogantsob]

That did not bother Eisenhower who put two on the Court in that fashion. I doubt that the Republicans in the Senate would object.

[Rockingham]

Recess appointments are fairly common for posts where a prompt appointment is needed. The usual result is a later renomination and routine Senate confirmation of the official involved and a normal tenure in office. A recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice though would nowadays likely be seen as something else despite the precedents for it.

Not only are such positions unusually powerful and of long-term significance, but the Democrats and their news media allies have been inclined to bitter, ideological opposition to Republican Supreme Court nominations ever since their unmerited vilification of and Senate rejection of the nominations of Clement Haynsworth (November 21, 1969) and Robert Bork (October 23, 1987). As the French say, appetite grows with eating, and since those victories for the Left, they reflexively oppose every conservative GOP Supreme Court nominee.

I am all for sticking it to the Democrats when we can, but a recess appointment seems more like a dodge to avoid a fight than winning one. With a Senate GOP majority, we ought to be able to win by straight up voting solid conservatives onto the Supreme Court. If necessary, we should use the nuclear option and break any filibuster. To me, that is really sticking it to our adversaries.