Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court effectively kills presidential recess appointments (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Recommended, but disagreed with. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Noel canning opinion also gives a road map on how the President can break the Senate's bogus "pro-forma" sessions and force a recess.

    1. The Court said that the Senate is in session, when it sas it's in session, so long as it can actually perform it's functions and conduct business. This means that if a Senator raises the absence of a qurum, phony pro-forma sessions can be exposed and recess appointments made.

    2. In the event the House and Senate can't agree on a recess date, the President cam force them into recess to a date if his or her choosing. See Art. II, section 3:

    "[I]n case of disagreement between [the House and the Senate], with respect to the time of adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper."
    What this means is that the only way the Senate can frustrate the President's recess appointment power is if they are actually in session, and are in session with the agreement of the House. They can't be in a pro-forma session where there's no quorum in town available to do Senate business, so long as a single Senator can object to the absence of a quorum.

    And, this only applies to recesses of less than 11 days. Not to mention that there is no longer a filibuster on executive branch appointments.

    All in all, this is not nearly as problematic for the President as it seems. The key point is that it validated intra-session recess appointments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site