Skip to main content

View Diary: Recess appointments (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anyone know if this is a record (none)
    Is this a normal number of recess appointments?

    Or is this higher than normal?

    Sickening.

    •  either way (none)
      it's not excusable.

      No president should abuse the recess appointment powers like this.

      •  Damn right (none)
        I'm reading/googling right now to see if recess appointments can be questioned or appealed by the Senate when they reconvene.

        Yet again, it's a raw, total abuse of power.  Simple as that.

        Yeah it might be legal, technically, but we all know that the spirit of that law wasn't about doing 17 appointments (that did not just become vacant), about 2 weeks before Senate reconvenes, just because the President knows he is losing more power and confirmation votes every minute.  

        We should not cow down and accept this if there is anything that can be done about it.

        The weird thing - aren't these types of appointments virtually rubber stamped anyway?  Are there one or two buried in there that would be contentious or something?  This smells.

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 04:50:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You think that's (none)
          an abuse of power? Try this.

          ''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

          Yup, not only are they saying they don't have to obey the law with respect to wiretapping, they still want to order torture, and say they can.

          Why, as Americans, are we even discussing this?

          Res Ipsa Loquitur, and you know what I'm talking about.

          by justme on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:42:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where's McCain (none)
            God help us.  I did not realize that he regularly issues these "signing orders" which basically say he'll bypass that law that he just signed whenever he deems it necessary.  

            Just bump up that terror level color, and do whatever you want.

            What I want to know is, where is McCain on this?  Why wasn't he protesting immediately?  Why hasn't he come forward and told the American people that the issue he holds so sacred is still a problem in light of recent events?  As the person who takes political credit for doing right on this issue, it's his responsibility to do so.

            First the changed the Army field manual.  Then Bush does a signing order.  Boy that torture legislation is really very helpful, huh?

            "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

            by joanneleon on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 06:35:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  McCain's too busy trying to get that thing (4.00)
              out of his butt - you know, the one GW shoved in there when he did this.

              McCain - he loves George so much, and George screws him again and again.  It is like a masochistic relationship on McCain's part - so sad, so sad.

              Republicans to Americans: "Are there no prisons?...And the Union workhouses?...Are they still in operation?"

              by adigal on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:19:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Bush/Cheney et all will FUCK the law... (none)
            ..whenever they feel like it.

            Pardon my French.

            And as long as I'm in obscenity mode, I volunteer Michelle Malkin for the blowjob detail.

        •  congress can impeach any officer (none)
          i think that's the only check on it, the way things are being done now.

          the recess appointment power has no relation to the original intent of the constitution anymore.  the reason it is there is that congress was originally intended to meet for a few months every two years.  obviously if vacancies came up while they were home something had to be done in the meantime.  the idea was that the appointment would only last until congress was assembled again, not for the president to sneak people in when congress wasn't looking.

          we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
          — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

          by zeke L on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:07:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bring Congress back to town (none)
            As frustrating as they are sometimes, I am very uncomfortable when Congress is not in town these days.  Jan. 31st is too long to wait for the House to reconvene.  I believe they were supposed to get back sooner but Hastert extended the date.  The Senate will be back sooner.  But really, with everything that's going on, I wish there was a way we could bring them back on Monday.    

            "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

            by joanneleon on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:19:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ted Kennedy challenged an appt. in 2004 (none)
        He lost:

        On October 14, 2004, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Evans v. Stephens, No. 02-16424, rejected a challenge by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) that Pryor's appointment to the court was an unconstitutional end-run around the Senate's right to confirm or reject judicial nominees. In an 8-2 decision, the court ruled that President Bush's appointment of Pryor was a constitutionally permissible exercise of his recess-appointment

        But there was this dissenting opinion:


        Dissenting Opinion
        In a dissenting opinion, Judge Rosemary Barkett wrote that the Constitution says that the president may fill a court vacancy that "may happen" during a recess but that does not mean that the president can fill a vacancy that has existed for some time, according to the News. The 11th Circuit seat had been vacant for more than three years when Bush appointed Pryor. Kennedy in a statement said, "Obviously, I disagree with the court's view that the president can bypass the Senate's constitutional role and appoint a federal judge during any Senate break, no matter how short," adding, "No previous president in all our history has ever taken such an extreme view of the Constitution on the appointment of federal judges" (Birmingham News, 10/15).

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:09:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site