Replies

The Obama Administration, unfortunately, has a very strong argument to support their decision. Congress is not in session. The pro-forma sessions, although ruled by the Clinton DOJ in 93 as being sufficient and having been affirmed as such by the Obama DOJ, will not be seen as sufficient by the courts. The Constitution is silent on how long of a break constitutes a "recess" and thus there is no constitutional grounds for challenging this.

Clearly recess appointments are an anachronism and a legacy of the time when it required days or weeks to notify and assemble Congress, but it still exists as a legitimate action on the part of the President.

Wish I was wrong on this, but I don't think so.

Obama wins this one. REPUBLICANS TAKE NOTE!!!!

You're probably right, Obama will get his way. It's just something Presidents do, from both parties. Bush did it with John Bolton, Clinton did it with Bill Lann Lee.

FYI Richard Cordray is from my state. He is as liberal as they come and hasn't done much other than run for political office and hold public service jobs. I met him once when I testified for a (state government) committee he was on. A nice enough fellow personally, he's just a true-believer liberal Dem, which of course is why Obama wants him on his team.

True but using this excuse that the economy demands that he act, what exactly is his check and balance now? I just want the Republicans to educate the American people on how far left Obama actually is, Obama’s goal in this election will be to win independents and moderates, he can only do that if he can convince Americans that he is right. In this he is extremely wrong and giving red meat to his base only. Using the Presidents own logic now he is saying that he will act without congressional approval on anything. Republicans must act, their response must be measured and balanced but they must do something.

The Constitution is silent on how long of a break constitutes a "recess" and thus there is no constitutional grounds for challenging this.

You may be correct in you assessment but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever made a definitive ruling on the subject. It is clear the original intent was to provide for continuity of government, not a method to circumvent the confirmation process.

Reasonable people, even when they disagree, learn to coexist and while both parties have abused the recess appointment, neither has gone to such an extreme as to challenge the confirmation requirement itself. Oboma, in his arrogance, may force this issue and if the Supreme Court is required to rule, I don't think even the liberals would support such an obvious circumvention of the checks and balances that are one of the guiding principals of our Constitution.

The Obama Administration, unfortunately, has a very strong argument to support their decision. Congress is not in session. The pro-forma sessions, although ruled by the Clinton DOJ in 93 as being sufficient and having been affirmed as such by the Obama DOJ, will not be seen as sufficient by the courts.

I strongly disagree.

Each chamber of Congress has the power to make its own rules, including the right to determine what is a recess to them.

Furthermore, there is a check and balance for this, as each chamber must consent to the other chamber's call for a recess, so two distinct bodies must rule on this.

There is plenty of Constitutional ground to say that the Congress gets to determine when it is in recess or not.

What we need is a statement from Roberts on this.

-PJ