Posted on 11/04/2006 5:21:05 PM PST by doug from upland
NOTE: there are rumors that Justice John Paul Stevens may be very ill and will soon retire. If the Dems take the Senate, all may not be lost. They would certainly not allow a conservative nominee out of committee and, if they don't take the Senate, they would certainly filibuster a conservative. ===============================================================================
QUESTION FOR C-SPAN: President Clinton has made some controversial “recess appointments.” How do these work? Don’t they go against the confirmation powers of the Senate? Loami, Illinois - 5/3/00
ANSWER: No, both are found in the Constitution in Article II, section 2. Clause 2 gives the Senate the power to advise and consent to nominations, while Clause 3 says:
The President shall have 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.
This enables the President to make an appointment during a Senate recess that would otherwise require the advise and consent of the Senate, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, federal judges, directors of federal agencies, and members of federal boards and commissions -- even Supreme Court Justices. Since 1791, 15 Supreme Court Justices began their tenure with a recess appointment, the most recent being Justice Potter Stewart in 1958.
President Clinton has now made 56 recess appointments in his 6 ½ years, the last being James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on June 4, 1999. President Bush made 77 recess appointments during his 4 year tenure, and in 8 years as President, Ronald Reagan made 243 such appointments. President Carter made 68 recess appointments over 4 years in office.
Any recess appointment the President makes during the first session of a Congress will last until the end of its second session [each Congress is split into two sessions of approximately one year each]. Recess appointments made in the second session of a Congress would expire at the end of the first session of the next Congress. Once this time period has expired, an official would have to receive formal confirmation from the Senate in order to remain in office.
The original purpose behind granting the President the power of recess appointments was to get around a practical problem. At the time the Constitution was written, short sessions and long periods of adjournment were the meeting pattern expected for Congress: the early Senate would routinely be in recess from March through December. Moreover, sessions were sometimes delayed because difficult travel conditions meant waiting a long time for enough Senators to arrive to assemble a quorum. The power given the President to make recess appointments was granted so that he wouldn’t be without top officials of government for long periods while waiting for the Senate to assemble.
Today, Congress meets for longer periods throughout the year, with shorter recesses. The motivation for recess appointments is rarely scheduling concerns any longer. Recess appointments are now more often made to avoid the Senate confirmation process. However, Presidents have to balance the political advantages of circumventing the Senate confirmation process with the political risks of alienating the Senate when it comes to future appointments.
All modern Presidents have made recess appointments both during the shorter breaks within a session of Congress as well as during the longer recess between the two sessions. Senate leaders have frequently complained about the appointments made during short intra-session recesses. Some have threatened to litigate the matter to the Supreme Court, but none have yet done that. A federal appeals court did rule in 1962 that the President had broad authority to make recess appointment decisions [U.S. vs. Alloco].
Believe or not that only dude I don't have on my dead pool when he finally passes
Bet they hate that.
Here is the story --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1732428/posts?page=1
Blessing on him and his family.
Of course, if a democrat Senate (shudder) fails to let a Bush appointee out of committee, the loss of a hard-leftist will still improve the makeup of The Court. Addition by subtraction.
So? A recess appointment would just be replaced by the next president.
We'll have to go "Constitutional Option" while we still have a majority.
Let's hope we keep the majority. We should have used the option before.
In a similar situation Adams packed the courts with Federalist judges before turning the administration and congress over to the Republicans.
I wish he would retire - but have a healthy retirement.
I share your concern, but the crucial thing is to start remaking SCOTUS and the lower courts for the long term.
There are still carter appointees in important judicial positions all over the country, not to mention clinton appointees in their hundreds. The problem is that the Democrats go all out when they get the chance, and the Republicans roll over and cooperate, whereas the Republicans have never pushed as hard as they should have, at least (hopefully) until now.
As a result, the tyrannical activists are dominant.
We need to fix the courts for the long haul, and it will take ten, twenty, thirty years to finish the job. Starting now, of course.
Of course we should have used it before. Just as the GOP should have made the tax cuts permanent. Just as they should have fully funded the border fence.
All while they had the chance.
Even if the GOP maintains control of both houses, it will be by extremely close margins. If they could not pass these bills with 10 or 12 more GOP congressmen
and at the least 3 more senators, what makes them believe they will be able to pass them if the GOP maintains control.?
Can't they still pass them after the election and before the new congress is seated? Of course THEY COULD, BUT THEY WON"T.
The Dems have no fear of filibustering whatever our side does.
I don't think Bush would do this. Well maybe Harriet Myers
Those of us on the right were outraged at a movie depicting the assassination of GWB. What is different wishing illness and death upon a USSC judge?
If they won't give a nominee an up or down vote, I believe he will do it. He won't leave a vacancy for two years.
We cannot be like the other side.
Most interesting.
"We'll have to go "Constitutional Option" while we still have a majority."
Okay, but he isn't dead yet, and hasn't retired yet. Gotta wait for that.
He may be holding off on dying, until after the elections.
By then it may NOT be a majority. And any previous arrangements for avoiding filibuster may have expired.
I think there's a big difference between wishing someone were dead and making a movie about killing them.
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.