[Cboldt]

-- I thought the issue was that Congress was really not in recess. Or is that another one? I didn't know when the vacancy occurred made a difference. --

The way the court resolved the issue was to determine the meaning and function of the recess appointments clause. Not only did the court conclude that the Senate was not in recess, it also defined the circumstances that satisfy the recess appointments clause.

To wit, a recess happens, on average, once a year (adjourn sine die is the legal marker); and the only vacancies that are amenable to recess appointment are those that happen, occur, start, begin during a recess.

So, now, in the DC Circuit, the timing of when a vacancy occurs makes a difference.

[FredZarguna]

I agree with Cboldt. This is actually a very broad ruling, and now I think the Supreme Court will have to consider the ruling in its entirety on appeal. The original sticking point was: the appointment was made, and Congress was not actually in recess. In its decision the appeals court has basically swept aside as Unconstitutional a lot more than it was asked to consider.

If this is upheld by the SCOTUS, the use of recess appointments to temporarily get people such as John Bolton into office is now dead (unless you can persuade current officeholders to wait for recess.)

Much as I liked Bolton, I think it's actually a good thing.

[pepsionice]

We should make one comment here...this method of “not being in session” during the Xmas period....was invented by Harry Reid toward the last year or two of Bush’s period. Basically...some Senator would walk into the Senate...state some business, open a session, and do a carry-over till tomorrow, and the next day...etc. It was a fake session, but Bush and his legal team figured that it’d be legit enough for the court (he was right).

So what Harry Reid invented....worked, and sadly, it also affected President Obama.

Here’s the final piece of this mess...the people appointed....made decisions that affected people’s lives. You can figure at least 10k cases that will be brought over the next year that center back over this appointment issue. Lawyers stand to make at least $500 million in legal costs (my humble belief)....all because of what Harry Reid started.