In my prior post I addressed the latest usage of the recess appointment powers by the president and I described it as “disdain” for checks and balances. It would be fair to point out (as I did in the post) that there is technically nothing wrong with the action, as it is an established practice. Further, one expects political actors to evaluate the existing rules and exploit them to their advantage when they find elements in those rules that can be used to achieve their political goals.
So, generically, my main gripe in this instance is with the rule itself and I would like to see the provision changed via amendment to do away with recess appointments entirely, or to limit them to when Congress is truly out of session and to limit the length of the term of the appointment. If a quick, temporary replacement is needed on occasion, fine. However, it is ludicrous to be able to appoint someone for two years sans confirmation because Congress went home for a holiday break. (Of course, I am wholly aware that such changes are hardly likely to be forthcoming).
In regards to President Bush, I do think it is fair to say that his administration has shown a great deal of disdain for checks and balances, often treating the process as an annoyance, rather than a key constitutional process. Whether it be using recess appointments to specifically scorn the Senate (as with the recent appointees or with Bolton) or, more problematically, with the lack of desire to allow oversight of his domestic anti-terrorism policies. Whether it is the eschewing of the FISA court or the lack of desire to give full disclosure to the appropriate oversight committees in the Congress, there has been a clear pattern of wishing that the executive branch should be able to do whatever it wants if it has a good enough reason (from its perspective).
Further I would note that the whole USA business is at least partially wrapped-up in this issue as well, at least as it pertains to the new rules concerning interim USAs appointed but not reviewed or confirmed by the Senate, when in the past both the Senate and the judiciary where involved in the process.
I would note that there are far broader issues here than this specific administration, or the specific politics of a given action and who wins and who loses. I am addressing here fundamental elements of how power is supposed to work (and not work, in some cases) under the Constitution.
April 5th, 2024 at 8:04 am
[...] Update: More on this subject here. Filed under: US Politics | | [...]
April 5th, 2024 at 9:45 am
[...] Captain’s Quarters, The Moderate Voice, Redstate , Riehl World View , Power Line, PoliBlog ™, Shakesville, DownWithTyranny!, Betsy’s Page, the talking dog, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Blue Crab Boulevard, Democracy Project, CorrenteWire, Prairie Weather , TalkLeft ,The Carpetbagger Report , Balkinization , BobGeiger.com, The Raw Story, Right Wing News, Crooks and Liars, NewsHog, The Moderate Voice, Chronicle of the Conspiracy, The Reaction, Sister Toldjah, Liberal Values and The Agonist Bookmark to: Tags: Congress,, Recess, Appointments,, Sam, Fox,, Susan, E., Dudley,, Andrew, G., Biggs,, Bush,, Democrats,, Outrage [...]
April 5th, 2024 at 10:07 am
It could easily be said this administration has shown a great deal of disdain for partisan politics being injected into the checks and balance system. With both Bolton and the USA’s the Dems are using the issue for partisan gain rather than a genuine desire for good government.
Absent completely disqualifying information nominees should be confirmed without submitting themselves to the three ring circus that is our senate and congress.
April 5th, 2024 at 10:32 am
The problem with your position, I would argue, is as follows:
It assumes that only the Congress engages in partisanship and somehow that the President’s choices and actions aren’t. By definition all of this stuff is partisan politics. You set the problem up as the President simply making his choices, but the Congress is the one being “bad” for being partisan. It isn’t as if, for example, that Bush couldn’t have picked a less controversial candidate than Bolton and the Fox nomination is dripping with partisan implications.
For that matter, that a given President wants certain nominees because he wants to further certain policy goals is, well, partisan.
As such, it is difficult to argue that somehow it is just the Congress that is being partisan.
Further, while I generally agree that Presidents should get qualified nominees confirmed, the Constitution dictates a role for the Senate in this process, which is inherently a political one. If you want Presidents to have unfettered appointment powers, then you need an amendment to the Constitution.
And really: if we have President Clinton, Part II or President Obama or whomever you like, and a GOP Congress, are you going to be as critical of partisan politics or as happy to defend the President going around the Senate?
Even if there is a Democratic Senate, but substantial GOP opposition to a given appointee (basically a reverse Bolton situation) are you going to be defending President Clinton’s Easter appointments?
These matters go beyond a specific administration or whether or not one likes a given set of nominees.
April 5th, 2024 at 11:02 am
[...] The Same Subject Continued (Bush and Checks and Balances) [...]