Senate Democrats have every reason to block President Bush from making undemocratic "recess-appointments" which would last until the end of his term. So why would they want to negotiate that power away?
One of Senate Democrats' rare successes has been to block President Bush from making "recess-appointments" which the constitution permits the President to do when the Senate is in recess for an extended period of time:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The last political scuffle of the year between the White House and the Democratic-led Congress played out on the floor of the Senate Friday morning -- even though nearly all the senators had left the Capitol for the Christmas holiday earlier in the week.
In a session that lasted under a minute, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, opened and then immediately gaveled closed the Senate.
His sole reason for doing so was to block President Bush from naming controversial "recess appointments" -- a constitutional mechanism that allows the president, during congressional recesses, to fill top government posts for up to one year and avoid Senate confirmation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced late Wednesday he would keep the Senate open with a series of "pro forma" sessions through mid-January.
Seems a shrewd and successfull manoever. But Democrats are apparently willing to bargain this power away:
Tense talks had just broken down with the White House on a deal that would have allowed the president to make dozens of those appointments if he agreed not to appoint one controversial official, Steven Bradbury, to be the permanent head of the influential Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
Why would Democrats gratuitiously surrender one of their most potent powers?