Posted on 12/26/2007 8:11:08 PM PST by TRY ONE
Dec. 26, 2007, 4:25PM Senate meets for 9 seconds to block Bush appointment
By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press
TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments (40) Recommend WASHINGTON — The House was quiet as a mouse the day after Christmas. But across the Capitol, the Senate was operating in an unusually efficient manner in its ongoing power struggle with President Bush.
A nine-second session gaveled in and out by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., prevented Bush from appointing as an assistant attorney general a nominee roundly rejected by majority Democrats. Without the pro forma session, the Senate would be technically adjourned, allowing the president to install officials without Senate confirmation.
The business of blocking Bush's recess appointments was serious. It represents an institutional standoff between Congress and the president that could repeat itself during Congress' vacations for the remainder of Bush's presidency.
In such situations, pro forma sessions also could give Bush some political cover on popular legislation he doesn't want to sign. When Congress is holding pro forma sessions and is not formally adjourned, a bill sent to a president automatically becomes law 10 days after he receives it — excluding Sundays — unless he vetoes it.
That could be the fate of two bills Congress passed last week. One growing out of the Virginia Tech massacre makes it harder for people with mental illness records to buy guns. The other makes it easier for journalists and others to obtain government documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA bill, for example, would become law on New Year's Eve if not vetoed before then, according to Senate Judiciary Committee officials.
In practice, today's pro forma process was almost comical.
"Good morning!" Webb, sporting a respectful tie and jacket, called to the floor staff assembled just for the occasion in an otherwise sleepy and chilly Capitol. One clerk congratulated Webb on being 30 seconds early, thrice the amount of time it would take to complete the Senate's work for the day.
Climbing to the president's chair, Webb took the gavel and banged it.
"The Senate will come to order," he intoned, reading from a two-line script to a floor empty of other senators but witnessed from the gallery by one reporter and about a half dozen staffers. "Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Friday, December 28th, 2007 at 10 a.m."
His work done, Webb left. The floor staff reported to those in the gallery overhead that the session had lasted nine seconds.
"I didn't appoint myself ambassador to a tropical nation," Webb, a former Navy secretary, novelist and TV documentary maker, quipped afterward.
Before Congress left last week, Democrats scheduled 11 pro forma sessions to fill the void until the Senate returns to regular session on Jan. 22. The purpose was to stop Bush from using the constitutional power presidents hold under the Constitution to bypass Senate confirmation and unilaterally install his nominees in office when Congress is adjourned.
Democrats wanted to block one such recess appointment in particular: Steven Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Counsel. Bush nominated Bradbury for the job and asked the Senate to remove the "acting" in his title.
Democrats would have none of it, complaining Bradbury had signed two secret memos in 2005 saying it was OK for the CIA to use harsh interrogation techniques — some call it torture — on terrorism detainees.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Bush refused to rule out appointing Bradbury to the job if the Senate formally adjourned. So, Reid decided to keep the Senate in session with pro forma meetings every two or three days.
Smart move by the DEMs.
See "4. ORDER OF PROCEDURE" from December 19, 2007, at Page S16069 of the Congressional Record.
Notice Senator Reid's "I ask unanimous consent," followed by a schedule for pro forma sessions, recesses and adjournment sine die, and concluding with the chair's statement, "Without objection, it is so ordered."
In general, the notion that a bare quorum of senators (e.g., all of the GOP, plus VP Cheney), can show up and get legislative advantage "on surprise" is ludicrous. So is the notion that a trap can be sprung when all the potential objectors happen to be absent from the floor. The Senate runs on unanimous consent - consent sometimes given grudgingly, but given, just the same. Takebacks of consent require unanimous takeback.
The situation with pending nominations parallels the Democrats particular objections with recess appointments. See "2. NOMINATIONS STATUS QUO," also from December 19, but at Page S16061 of the Congressional Record.
Usually, all nominations not acted on are returned to the president when the Senate adjourns sine die (See Senate Rule XXXI), but in this case, all nominations are kept status quo, except Bradbury and six nominees that had been pending before the Armed Services Committee.
Finally, the process of entering a series of pro forma sessions in order to prevent a period of longer than 3 days without a Senate meeting was also done over the November/Thanksgiving recess, as well. AMERICAblog.com: Reid shut downs Bush recess appointments during Thanksgiving. To the best of my knowledge, it is otherwise without precedent.
Were is the presiding officer when this is going on ?
‘”I didn’t appoint myself ambassador to a tropical nation,” Webb, a former Navy secretary, novelist and TV documentary maker, quipped afterward. ‘
We’re more worried about your weird fixation on fathers putting their kids penis in their mouths, you nutcase.
The president of the senate should bother to show up.!!!!
No, he could not block a quorum call. But adjournment for a quorum call would not itself invoke a recess. It would just force the democrats to get 50 people to show up for the next session. A “recess” is like 10 days, this is why they are doing this every few days, so they can recover if the republicans try anything.
Sure, I’d like to see them do it anyway, JUST TO MAKE the democrats show up once every 10 days. But the democrats WOULD show up if they had to, so it would just be a gesture.
BTW, I wouldn’t count on all of the republican senators supporting this action anyway — senators in general are not enamored with recess appointments, seeing it as a usurpation of their authority. So a good number of republican senators would oppose taking extraordinary steps just to provide an opportunity for the president to make a recess appointment.
If Bush wanted to make a big deal out of it, he could simply vacate the offices that aren’t appointed, and refuse to spend money or perform the work assigned to those offices, until the senate acted on his appointment. By making “acting” personnel, he takes off the pressure.
I guess the democrats could have done this to block a recess judicial appointment as well, but since you can’t do “acting” judges, the effects would be more severe.
This illustrates the level of discord between the Senate Republicans and the Bush WH. By my estimation, perhaps half of the Pubbies in the Senate (if that) are willing to support Dubya on strategy/legislation, save for Iraq and tax cuts.
How many really supported Dubya's version of "comprehensive immigration reform"?
Now that I think about it, Dubya's "grand farewell" at next year's convention will hardly rival the sendoff the Gipper received.
Yeah...but I was thinking about that Quorum call.
If *all* the rest of the GOPers were waiting in the halls when the call went out..and they all came in, The acting Dem even though he would vote nay...numerically, would make the quorum complete. >Bo)
Yes, if they all showed up, they could have a quorum, but they wouldn’t be able to conduct any business because you can only conduct senate business by unanimous consent or through forced action by cloture, neither of which would be possible.
The only thing they could do is force adjourment, but I’m not even sure that would matter, because it may be that the senate was still technically in session before the adjournment is closed. I don’t know if you can object to bringing the senate INTO session based on the absense of a quorum.
That is an interesting question though, and I think I’m going to hit up my parlamentarian about that.
No there can not be a objection to the quorum call, A senator could object to suspending a quorum call.
How ever they could refuse to approve the journal for those days that a quorum was not present. Make the RATS prove there was a session.
Since there is a constitutional requirement for a new session to begin in early January. That means an old session must formally end before the next can begin. I wonder if the President can slide in a “recess appointment” in that interim?
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.