(re: rumors about Stevens illness) PRESIDENT CAN MAKE SUPREME COURT RECESS APPOINTMENT

c-span ^ | 2000 | c-span

[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].

[Ingtar]

Sadly, I agree. He will try to push through Gonzales if given the chance in his last two years.

[bitty]

What does the date matter as long as it follows the constitution?

[bitty]

What does the date matter as long as it follows the constitution?

[Prost1]

I make no assumptions. It is just an old expression.

I guess it has fallen into disuse since it seems new to you.

[dennisw]

Amusing. Ginsborg has gastric-stomach problems. Black coffee is like a bomb for her. Cancer in that region or just bad bad health.

[bitty]

Sorry about the double post.

[BW2221]

Stevens is a lasting testimonial to Jerry Ford's incompetence.

[dennisw]

Political considerations prevent Pres Bush (Pres Clinton too) from making any old recess appointments he wants. Despite what the law states

[mountn man]

I make no assumptions. It is just an old expression.

I guess it has fallen into disuse since it seems new to you.

I understood perfectly what you were saying. I wasn't trying to be confrontational either. With Baders stand on so many things, and being a former ACLU (Against Christian Living Union), I'd question her life by the actions she done.

[mrsmith]

There was a big fuss over Bush recess appointing Pickering to an appeals court and over Clinton recess appointing Gregory to one.

[dennisw]

Did those judicial appointments take place? Even if they did it's FAR more rare than more mundane recess appointments

[rottndog]

The pres has every right under the U.S.C. to recess appoint a judge to the USSC, especially if the Dems filibuster a nominee (which is blatantly unconstitutional). The problem is Bush probably doesn't have the guts to do it.

[mrsmith]

Yeah they took place. Gregory was later confirmed. Pickering wasn't, I don't know what his status is. I think he's gone by now.

There have been hundreds of recess appointments.
They're not usual, but not rare.

[popdonnelly]

Tough sh_t. After Clinton loaded the Federal courts with his fellow goobers, the Dems can hardly complaining about a Republican President nominating Republicans.

[mrsmith]

WIKIPEDIA:
President George W. Bush recess appointed two judges, William Pryor and Charles Pickering to U.S. courts of appeals after their nominations were subjected to a Senate filibuster by opposition Democrats. Judge Pickering of the Fifth Circuit, withdrew his name from consideration for renomination and retired when his recess appointment expired. Judge Pryor was subsequently confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Eleventh Circuit.

[dennisw]

thanks for the informations

[Neidermeyer]

We cannot be like the other side.

---

My thoughts exactly ,, we need to be MORE ruthless than the other side (use every power open to us under the rules),, I don't wish anyone harm or illness but if a vacancy occurrs we cannot just let the RINO's push the agenda ,, maybe you don't remember how they treated Ronaldus Maximus and his appointments and budgets... or how cozying up to the swimmer and the rest of the RATS have helped GB get his agenda through..

yeah thats what we need Bi-Partisanship! /sarc

[Neidermeyer]

And while we're at it lets just disband the 9th Circus and let the other courts split their load...

[doug from upland]

Yes, it has been a long time. It may be time again.

[woodb01]

Justice Stevens is likely retiring before the end of the year.  GET THE VOTERS TO THE POLLS!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732428/posts

ONLY YOU CAN ENSURE THAT THE TERRORISTS DO NOT CLAIM VICTORY WITH A DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS!! 

CLICK THE IMAGE ABOVE, OR CLICK HERE AND SPEND 15 TO 30 MINUTES MAKING A FEW PHONE CALLS!  THAT'S ALL IT TAKES AND YOU CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE! 

STOP THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS FROM CLAIMING VICTORY, AND STOP THE JUDICIAL TERRORISTS FROM CLAIMING VICTORY!!  THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

If YOU have your own site, or your own blog, BY ALL MEANS, POST THIS CALL TO ACTION!

For more info, visit http://www.nodnc.com