News just in: SC narrows the Presidents ability to make recess appts. Pro Forma

[Oldgamer]

It's on the news now... they just ruled in a defeat for POTUS. Wonder how he is going to get the vacancies filled now? I don't have a link yet because the news is forming right now on this.

 

[Brainonska511]

They did remove the rule about recess appointments only being allowed between actual, formal sessions of Congress.

And the it looks like the President might have some options though under Article II, Section 3, however, this method is largely untested:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper

But they are right, 3-10 days isn't that long for most positions that need filling (but it does leave open the door to recess appointments should they prove necessary). It is still kind of obnoxious that the Senate is abdicating its responsibility to approve appointments. If they don't agree, then they should vote no. But it's effectively hamstringing the bureaucracies (and judiciary) we have created, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[glenn1]

They did remove the rule about recess appointments only being allowed between actual, formal sessions of Congress.

And the it looks like the President might have some options though under Article II, Section 3, however, this method is largely untested:

But they are right, 3-10 days isn't that long for most positions that need filling (but it does leave open the door to recess appointments should they prove necessary). It is still kind of obnoxious that the Senate is abdicating its responsibility to approve appointments. If they don't agree, then they should vote no. But it's effectively hamstringing the bureaucracies (and judiciary) we have created, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

I'd be all for "negative implied consent" being used for presidential nominees. POTUS should have his picks unless Congress affirmatively votes them down in a timely fashion (duration TBD).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They did remove the rule about recess appointments only being allowed between actual, formal sessions of Congress.

And the it looks like the President might have some options though under Article II, Section 3, however, this method is largely untested:

But they are right, 3-10 days isn't that long for most positions that need filling (but it does leave open the door to recess appointments should they prove necessary). It is still kind of obnoxious that the Senate is abdicating its responsibility to approve appointments. If they don't agree, then they should vote no. But it's effectively hamstringing the bureaucracies (and judiciary) we have created, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

That may be tried, however this extreme measure isn't going to come close to "extraordinary" simply because a President can't get what he wants. It would be struck down in days at most.

 

[Brainonska511]

That may be tried, however this extreme measure isn't going to come close to "extraordinary" simply because a President can't get what he wants. It would be struck down in days at most.

Yeah. There would have to be some extreme deadlock before such a measure could reasonably be tried. I doubt the president would have public support if he tried to exercise his powers under Article II, Section 3, especially if it was so that he could then force a recess appointment through.

 

[fskimospy]

Overall I think this is the right decision. This will create a new problem that needs to be solved however, in that the Senate may in the future decide to try to pull a backdoor veto of agencies it doesn't like by refusing to staff them.

My wish would be for legislation to have a new provision in it that says that agencies that have Senate confirmation requirements for staffers receive a confirmation vote within say, 6 months of nomination, or the nominee is presumed to be confirmed.

Or eliminate the filibuster altogether, of course.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah. There would have to be some extreme deadlock before such a measure could reasonably be tried. I doubt the president would have public support if he tried to exercise his powers under Article II, Section 3, especially if it was so that he could then force a recess appointment through.

I think the criteria is far more "extreme" than appointments or deadlock. I'm thinking insurrection threatening the entire government or invasion. Think civil or nuclear war or a natural disaster of similar proportions. Political expediency or filling offices wouldn't even be a blip. I suppose if Congress got so bad that it was unable to pass basic legislation that could be a trigger, but it would be of such magnitude that there would be rioting to the point of likely revolt. There's been nothing like that seen.

 

[thraashman]

I think the criteria is far more "extreme" than appointments or deadlock. I'm thinking insurrection threatening the entire government or invasion. Think civil or nuclear war or a natural disaster of similar proportions. Political expediency or filling offices wouldn't even be a blip. I suppose if Congress got so bad that it was unable to pass basic legislation that could be a trigger, but it would be of such magnitude that there would be rioting to the point of likely revolt. There's been nothing like that seen.

I would say the bolded part accurately describes the current Congress.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would say the bolded part accurately describes the current Congress.

I'd strongly disagree. It may not pass legislation that you like. It may fight among itself. The basic functions continue however. Optimal? No, but the nation has been in far far worse shape. I think anyone arguing that isn't the case needs to read up on the Civil War.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd strongly disagree. It may not pass legislation that you like. It may fight among itself. The basic functions continue however. Optimal? No, but the nation has been in far far worse shape. I think anyone arguing that isn't the case needs to read up on the Civil War.

Just an FYI, the current Congress is on track to pass the smallest amount of legislation in US history. Even the appropriations bills it passes, etc, are largely continuing resolutions that become increasingly outdated and ineffective as time goes by. They were barely able to stave off a self-inflicted catastrophic default.

This is not a functional institution, even as Congress goes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just an FYI, the current Congress is on track to pass the smallest amount of legislation in US history. Even the appropriations bills it passes, etc, are largely continuing resolutions that become increasingly outdated and ineffective as time goes by. They were barely able to stave off a self-inflicted catastrophic default.

This is not a functional institution, even as Congress goes.

Yet we have no catastrophe. People have the government that was elected by the process that many point out has been in place for a very long time. That it doesn't functional well does not mean the criteria of "extraordinary" sufficient for one branch of government to effectively dissolve the other has been met and I doubt the SCOUTUS would either.

 

[TerryMathews]

I would say the bolded part accurately describes the current Congress.

You're including the Senate as well right?

 

[xBiffx]

"The Senate is in session when it says that it is." Seems pretty well defined. As defined as the lines should be between the powers of the legislative and executive branch and their ability to execute those powers. When the executive gets to determine when the legislative branch gets to use its powers, that seems like an overall abuse of the system.

 

[trenchfoot]

With Dems in control of the Senate at the moment, along with the recent rule change allowing simple majority votes for appointment approvals, it seems like the SCOTUS ruling is not much of a defeat for Obama (the Presidency).

I would think now that the SCOTUS has ruled, Obama is going to abandon his policy of using the simple majority rule with reservations and apply that rule change to all of his appointment choices.

The only way this ruling would stymie Obama in a really hurtful way is if the Repubs take control of the Senate in the upcoming elections.

Either way, the ruling affects both parties equally, same as the simple majority rule change the Dem Senate members put into effect, so in that regard it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.

 

[xBiffx]

With Dems in control of the Senate at the moment, along with the recent rule change allowing simple majority votes for appointment approvals, it seems like the SCOTUS ruling is not much of a defeat for Obama (the Presidency).

I would think now that the SCOTUS has ruled, Obama is going to abandon his policy of using the simple majority rule with reservations and apply that rule change to all of his appointment choices.

The only way this ruling would stymie Obama in a really hurtful way is if the Repubs take control of the Senate in the upcoming elections.

Either way, the ruling affects both parties equally, same as the simple majority rule change the Dem Senate members put into effect, so in that regard it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.

The majority don't have sole discretion to determine when the Senate is in session. At least not that I'm aware of. So the minority can still dictate when the Senate is in session, can it not?

 

[fskimospy]

The majority don't have sole discretion to determine when the Senate is in session. At least not that I'm aware of. So the minority can still dictate when the Senate is in session, can it not?

You're missing his point; as of right now there's no need for recess appointments as the filibuster for appointments has largely been abolished. (and rightly so)

 

[nehalem256]

Just an FYI, the current Congress is on track to pass the smallest amount of legislation in US history. Even the appropriations bills it passes, etc, are largely continuing resolutions that become increasingly outdated and ineffective as time goes by. They were barely able to stave off a self-inflicted catastrophic default.

This is not a functional institution, even as Congress goes.

Which seems like a pretty stupid measure of congressional functionality.

 

[xBiffx]

You're missing his point; as of right now there's no need for recess appointments as the filibuster for appointments has largely been abolished. (and rightly so)

But what if the executive decided to appoint someone which neither side in the Senate could get behind? One in which a simple majority was hard to muster?

 

[fskimospy]

Which seems like a pretty stupid measure of congressional functionality.

There are many measures of Congressional effectiveness. I'm not aware of a single one this congress does well.

I wonder if that's why my post had more than one sentence in it, you stupid piece of shit.

 

[theeedude]

Fortunately Harry Reid got rid of the appointment filibuster.

 

[shira]

It's on the news now... they just ruled in a defeat for POTUS. Wonder how he is going to get the vacancies filled now? I don't have a link yet because the news is forming right now on this.

The problem exists only when the President and Senate majority are held by different parties. When the two are held by the same party, then if appointments being consistently blocked becomes a serious problem that party can change the senate rules to streamline appointments, as has been occurring with judicial appointments since the Senate changed to rules to prevent filibustering of judicial nominees and executive-level appointments.

 

[shira]

Fortunately Harry Reid got rid of the appointment filibuster.

Only for the federal judiciary and executive-level appointments.

Edit: But Supreme Court nominees can still be filibustered.

 

[fskimospy]

Only for the federal judiciary.

No, for everything except for supreme court justices.

 

[bradley]

William Henry Harrison 0. Most people don't realize the Emancipation Proclamation was in fact an executive order, another one was the suspension of habeas corpus. The good, the bad, and the ugly. We have been lawless so long, we forgot what laws represent. I disliked these recess appointments with a passion.

Well at least, in this particular case, finally protectionism isn't alive and well at the USSC. Yet cross the cable companies (ala Aereo's streaming) and expect a fast track right to the USSC. Although, this is just one good step of thousands needed in order to restore a pulse to this nation. I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[Texashiker]

Just an FYI, the current Congress is on track to pass the smallest amount of legislation in US history.

For the love of GOD and everything holy, GOOD!!!!!!!

Congress is passing too many laws. We could probably go a hundred years and not need another law passed.

Would would be awesome, if congress met every other year, and then only for about 2 months. Then they would not have time to work on these stupid laws. Make them go back to their district and live like everyone else.