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].
There's a great story in the Bible where the Israelites had something like 30,000 men, and God told the Jewish leader (can't remember if it was Joshua or whom) to weed out 20,000. When he did that, God told him to weed out more, until he only had 300. Then they kicked butt!
It depends on a) who the "remnant" is, and b) whether they listen to the message the voters sent.
even another Anthony Kennedy would be an improvement on Stevens.
He's the most radical member of the court.
Even if the Dems took the Senate, they couldn't stall a Bush appointment 2 years. And there are a few Dems who would vote with the GOP.
Ben Nelson D-NE, Tim Johnson D-SD, Kent Conrad D-ND, Robert Byrd D-WV voted for Alito.
Other Democrats in "the gang of 14" are Joe Lieberman D-CT, Mary Landrieu D-LA, Daniel Inouye D-HI, Mark Pryor D-AR, Ken Salazar D-CO.
Only 22 Democrats voted against John Roberts.
41 Democrats voted against Sam Alito and 1 Republican, Linoln Chaffee.
Otherwise known as the Dark Side.
Otherwise known as the Dark Side.
No comments about Darth Bader.
I wish Stevens well but I also wish he decides to retire. I remember when he was appointed by Gerry Ford, who told conservatives to bug off on their concerns that he was a true left liberal. Well, next to Ginsburg and the unqualified Souter, Stevens is the most far left member of the Court. One reason why Ford almost lost to Reagan and did lose to Carter and why he's still considered by many of us to be among our most incompetent presidents.
Not really. One is an action of the body. The other is an action of the mind. "Wishing" evil upon others is an infection of the mind.
Proverbs 23:7 For as [a man] thinks in his heart, so is he.
You are missing my meaning.
We are all born to die. I understand Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sick and possibly dying. Michael's boats are ready to take her home. She is just waiting to be called.
BTW, Bill Clinton barely escaped death during his last operation. The doctors did not give him a good prognosis based on "family" history.
After the election we will have the exact same senators as now- until the new senators come in next year.
So we'll still have a majority.
Just a reminder of how things were in Oct 2001 just before the dems lost the senate...
Wed, Oct 24 2001 10:17 pm
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.politics, alt.politics.bush, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc
America Loses with no Justices apppointed. Media refers to this technique as " Obstructionism" when Republicans were in the majority. Now they dont when DemocRATS use the tactic.
http://discuss.cafenetamerica.com
Bush has no more elections to worry about (after next Tuesday).
He will appoint and try to push through Alberto Gonzales as the next SC appointment.
I am awaiting Miguel Estrada to be named.
Thats making the assumption that she's going to heaven.
Never have I heard of a recess appointment to any Federal judgeship at any level. If there have been any I don't know about them.
Did you read the article?
----- Since 1791, 15 Supreme Court Justices began their tenure with a recess appointment, the most recent being Justice Potter Stewart in 1958.
if Ginsborg gives up the ghost we'll get a twofer
"He may be holding off on dying, until after the elections."
LOL!!! I'm sorry, I had to laugh!
1958 is a long time ago......how many other Federal judges have gotten recess appointments in recent memory? I don't know of any
Notice her recent good health (relatively speaking).
That old bat might hang on for another decade. Think I'll change my FR frontpage to eliminate that thought. Then she'll go back to her coffee, and then who knows what might happen!
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.