Replies

Well, that's what he should do is make recess appointments.

While Bush can make recess appointments for executive branch positions, I don't know if it is legal for judicial appointments. The latter are for life, to avoid having to kow-tow to politicians (to remain unbiased and all that). If a sitting judge has to be re-confirmed it could affect his impartiality, knowing he has to kiss up to the congress critters again in 12 months.

Yeah that's a good point. I'm don't know about how things work with regards to what the president can or can't do.

I think the thing here is the ballot box in November where we replace those Demorats and RINO's on the judiciary commitee with those who will put those judges in. Right now, the reason for the mess is because of a certain POS from Vermont who switched parties and gave the Demorats an illegitimate majority in the Senate. Something I don't think the voters had in mind in the 2000 elections.

What the Demorats seem to want want is for their party to become the source of law in this country and for their platform to attain the full force of law. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they set up the framework for goverment in this country but apparently some people with a warped mindset seem to think differently.

Recess appointments run, as I understand it, for twelve months. After that, they need to be confirmed. Clinton recess appointed a black judge (Gregory) to the 4th Circuit (the first in history) who was later confirmed. Once on the bench, it'd be difficult to defeat a number of those nominated. Estrada, for example, would be tough for the Dems to oppose once seated. Recess appointments probably don't make sense for sitting judges who'd have to give up their positions, such as Pickering, but Estrada is in private practice and McConnell is a tenured professor.