[Cheburashka]

Your points on recess appointments to the Supreme Court are well taken.

One of the documents you cited made three key points, first that most recess appointments made to the Supreme Court were made in the 19th Century (when traveling to Washington was difficult and Congress was not in session for long periods of the year), the last Supreme Court recess appointments were made by Eisenhower, and that the Senate of his time passed a resolution objecting to the use of the recess appointment in that manner.

The President can make recess appointments everywhere in the judicial and executive branches, not just in the Supreme Court, and I was referring to that.

I doubt John Bolton will be confirmed now, for instance, unless the 2006 election results bring a marked change to the Senate. In fact, the recess appointment is practically an admission that the Senate at present will not confirm him.

In general, why would the Senate ratify an end run around its own prerogatives?

In any case, it still makes sense to stand and fight now, not put it off with a temporary appointment. The Democrats would love to fill the vacancy in 2009, if they should happen to win the Presidency. Why reward them for their bad behavior?

[Cboldt]

In general, why would the Senate ratify an end run around its own prerogatives?

In general it wouldn't. But in the case of nominations, there is vigorous debate as to whether or not the Senate rightfully has the prerogative to set a vote hurdle of its own choosing (i.e., something other than simple majority) for the advise and consent of nominations.

Bolton would have been approved by a simple majority, if his nomination had gone to the floor for a vote. Bolton wasn't rejected, he was never voted on. The Senate refused to vote on the nominee.