Posted on 05/23/2008 3:17:04 PM PDT by SmithL
The Senate is famed for its longwinded debates, but on Friday it took Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown just seconds to stop Republicans in their tracks.
With the Senate entering the first day of its Memorial Day recess, the Ohio senator was briefly in the chair, before a near-empty chamber, to gavel in and gavel out what is called a pro forma session. Without that procedural move, the Senate would technically be adjourned and President Bush could install administration officials or judges as "recess appointments" — without Senate confirmation.
"That's the fastest I've ever done it," said Brown, who like other freshmen does duty as presiding officer when the Senate is in regular session. He said he didn't realize until he got there that the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, which usually open a session, were dispensed with for pro forma meetings.
"I'm willing to do it," Brown said of showing up when nearly every senator has already left town. "We're not going to let them get away with that kind of abuse of power."
According to numbers provided by the Senate historian's office, Bush had made 165 recess appointments by last fall. That's when Democrats started blocking them with pro forma sessions.
By comparison, former President Clinton had a total of 140 recess appointments over eight years, George H.W. Bush had 77 in his four years and Ronald Reagan 243 in his eight years in office. A recess appointee is allowed to serve until the end of the congressional session, which in this case coincides with the end of the Bush presidency.
The mini-sessions must be held every three days to keep the Senate from officially going into recess. Next Tuesday, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who also got pro forma duty over the New Year holiday because he lives nearby,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The gall.
Excuse my French, but if the Constitution provides for the President to make recess appointments, could somebody please tell this buggerf*** of a senator that it is NOT an abuse of power?
Hopefully, more Republicans will start to get it, Democrats do not play fair.
For the other twenty-three hours and fifty-nine minutes, the Senate was not in session. President Bush should make his recess appointments during that time.
Hopefully, more Republicans will start to get it, Democrats do not play fair.
don’t
care.
With all the perks they get, not only while in office but for the rest of their lives, why would they care?
Yes, Bush has made more recess appointments that others. That is becuase of the RATS’ intrasegence. They simply refused to allow him the power that comes with the presidency. The GOP, on the other hand, even approved Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Exactly. If this power is in the consitution, then by definition, the president is exercising the recess appointment power properly.
I would love to see if they do this next year to President Obama. I bet not.
I'm just sayin'... ;)
Ginsberg was approved by almost a unanimous vote, as I recall. And on the conservative side, Judge Scalia was also confirmed close to unanimously. Not all Supreme Court appointments become politicized. Bork is the most famous one. Clarence Thomas was another. Then with Roberts and Alito, there was strong Dem. opposition.
Maybe from now on, Supreme Court appointments will be an adversary proceeding.
They are a lazy bunch and good for nothing.
Hey, Rove got Bush a Congress he could “work with”—
Nah, when the time comes they'll act like the statesman-saps they are.
Abuse of power, indeed. As always, the Democrats accuse the Republicans of doing exactly what THEY actually do.
Bush should go ahead and make recess appointments anyway, and let the Democrats try to fight them.
This is not new. The Craps promised to do this all the way until January, 09.
Strange, but I can't find the three day rule in my copy of the Constitution. Can anyone tell me where it comes from?
If the Republicans had any backbone, could enough of them show up at one of these sessions to block the adjournment and push through some Republican bills?
Do congresscritters get paid more for each day the house is in session?
“We’re not going to let them get away with that kind of abuse of power.”
Unless, of course, it’s a DhimmiRat in the White House...and then recess appointments won’t even be necessary, let alone be an issue of partisan political playtime.
These arrested-adolescence windbags need to be run out of office...all of them.
Shame on anyone who stayed home or voted for the OH Dem to teach the GOP a lesson.
He can't. The Senate is not in recess. That's the whole reason behind this stunt.
They need to be in the majority first, and I'm sure that the Democrats aren't planning on that happening any time soon.
The last thing Bush needs now is for the Supreme Court to throw all those appointees out of their positions. Long and short, Bush can make recess appointments when the Senate is in recess. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to recess.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 4: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
Note Bush isn’t close to Reagan’s numbers, but the numbers show the democrats have failed miserably at one of their constitutional duties — voting to consent or reject nominees.
[, Bush should issue an Executive Order shutting down each affected department and laying off all of the Democrat beneficiaries of political patronage who work in them. ]
It is a weakness of rinos to make deals with the left which no dem will ever do with the right. He has a low approval rating because of so many missed oppurtunities to stand up for the right.
[Unless, of course, it’s a DhimmiRat in the White House...]
Potatoe, potaaatoe. No diff in rines and dems.
The arrogant ignorance of these clowns is simply unbelievable. The people abusing their power here is the Congress, not the Executive. The President is a Co-Equal branch of Govt, not some sort of Congressional Clerk.
Conservative have got to simply deal with the political reality rather then rationalize why they are losing.
Hyper partisan blustering may feed the macho boy egos of the Net warriors, it doesn't work as a political agenda.
But then we all know that deep down the BlusterCons really are not interested in solutions or the messy work of being a majority. They just want to be able to sit at their computer and scream and bitch and whine about everything instead.
They could not be bothered get off their butt and fight for control the Republican party, so the BlusterCons think running away and forming their own little political clique with their 3 freind is going to make them MORE politically effective?
Congress abuse their powers a hell of a lot more than the Executive branch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.