J’attendrai
1 Like
Once again, the Supreme Court gives Republicans even more power.
Well, I just read through the opinion, and it seems to me that the court simply made up the 4-9 day window out of whole cloth. It used the reasoning that a bill not signed within 10 days (excluding Sunday) becomes law, and that no more than 3 days in recess must be agreed to by both chambers (per Article 1, Section 5). So they simply mashed the two together and said 1 to 9 days is simply a no go as a “recess” for the POTUS regarding wether the Senate in or out of recess.
Of course Scalia and the his posse of 3 lunatics sought to render the recess appointment power effectively dead-letter law by saying it could only occur inter-session not intra-session and only for vacancies that occurs during that adjournment.
And to give everyone an idea of exactly how absurd Scalia’s radical interpretation is, the Senate convened (in pro forma) in the 1st session of the 112th Congress on December 30, 2011, gaveled itself in at 2 seconds after 11a.m. then gaveled itself out 32 seconds later. Then (while still in the 1st session) met at 32 seconds after 12:01 p.m. on January 3, 2012 and declared that it convened as the start of the 2nd session of the 112th Congress.
So where is this phantom inter-session time period?
Scalia is seriously trying to push some sort of Schrödinger’s cat period of time as being “inter-session” that no President could ever avail itself of.
In short, the SCOTUS effectively nullified Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
2 Likes
Well, only because of who currently holds the House majority (perversely enough). Because the Senate has been forced to hold these pro forma sessions even though Democrats currently hold the majority in the Senate, because per Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution both chambers have to agree to adjourn. The House has been in essence refusing to adjourn for more than 3 days, thus forcing the Senate to do likewise.
More histrionics about this decision.
And a regrettable lack of memory for previous Senate approaches to this: notably, one Jim Webb, gaveling in and gaveling out, effectively preventing John Bolton from being recess appointed to anything. The SC just said “Hey, what Harry Reid did in 2007 was within the bounds of the Senate.” But TPM, and Kapur keep flacking this.
I don’t deny that the Democrats fired the first shot on using pro forma sessions to deny recess appointments. It had never been tested under the Constitution until now, and also because of Article I, Section 5, Clause 4, is effectively given a nomination filibuster power to the House (if it is held by the opposition) something which the Constitution never seems to intend since only Senate advice and consent for nominations was put into the Constitution.
But the nuclear option makes most of this moot for now, but that can be un-nuked in future Senates if there is ever the votes for it.
“But if Republicans win the majority, the Supreme Court will have given them the power to grind Obama nominees to a dead stop, should they choose to use it.”
This is hyperbole. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Harry Reid approach: keep the Senate “in business”, although the “in business” part is still clearly open to interpretation.
Look, TPM? I’m a supporter of you, I’ll vote Dem until I’m dead, but this level of hyping is disappointing.
Confirmation of Obama nominees will grind to a halt, period, if Rpublicans become the majority. Trying to hype that by pointing to this SC decision is nonsense.
1 Like
Don’t disagree, at all. We’re not at that point, however.
Your words have power. You have power and brilliance–and I know you will do the right thing and work toward our November victory. I am so sick of the hand-wringing and doom wailing in response to the presence of lunatics, racists and morons (most of whom will be deceased about the time the policies they hope to put in place would have destroyed society and the planet as we know it).
The only thing in their tired, barren, racist and OLD lives that they have to regale and rejoice in is that they regularly troll websites featuring Progressive authors, articles, posts looking for as many hand-wringers, worriers and doom-sayers as possible, knowing that their miserable lives are justified (in their opinion).
You remember the 1960s Star Trek episode in which the Klingons and the Enterprise crew were at each others’ throats and it turned out that there was an alien life form on the ship that fed on anger.
Well the Republican Party feeds on Old, tired, racist, neo-Confederate, militia, gun-driven, resentful people who have seen (in their opinion) life pass them by–and they want some payback (especially if an Affirmative Action Negro can wind up in the White House).
ALL of the dysfunction causing the hand-wringing and doom-saying (so much beloved by otherwise excellent websites like TruthOut) is giving every TeaBagging geriatric a rapture not seen or felt since the Sock Hop of 1956.
I signed up for Prime, but yeah, two posts from Kapur that over-hype and misrepresent this decision today? Why subscribe to support this facile and click-bait “journalism”?
How would Obama’s appointments go forward with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress? I don’t get how they would go through.
WTF – “gutted the president’s authority.” Really? How absurd is this reporting — it was minor, narrow ruling on ONE recess appointment.
They won’t, they won’t, they won’t.
Go forward. Which makes this post hyperbolic.
If Republicans become the majority in the Senate, all confirmation hearings will go nowhere. Except for exciting and breathless headlines from various news orgs. And click-bait for other sites.
Also? The practice of keeping the Senate in session “pro forma” started before Obama, and will continue, long after Obama.
And the SC just ruled that when the Senate says it’s is in session, it is in session.
Although the question about whether business can be conducted in so-said session seems to still be up for interpretation.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but this particular ruling isn’t that surprising. Nor is it the simplistic “Supreme Court rules against the first black president for doing the same thing that other presidents have done” kind of situation.
It just isn’t. The Supreme Court just upheld Harry Reid’s approach.
SCOTUS also affirmed the Democratics approach in 2007. Good for you, Harry Reid, for employing it. You were right.
OK but then Reid just has to figure out how to declare a Senate recess. I’m thinking just let VP Biden drop by, slam the gavel and pretend not to hear any objections. Then the President could fill every vacancy all at once.
We will just have to make sure that GOPers don’t take over the Senate!!
The Scotusi are late to the party but they did bring gifts.
Well that actually touches on and underscores what I was trying to get at upthread. The Constitution never intended the House to give advice or consent to Executive nominations. Only the Senate. However, because the House is refusing to allow the Senate to go into recess for more than 3 days, it is in essence wagging the Senate tail and blocking the POTUS form exercising his Constitutional right to recess appoint.
That’s what makes me question the entire bench on this ruling since it seems they are looking at this completely in a vacuum as to what was occurring, that a chamber the Constitutional glaringly excludes form the confirmation process is in fact denying the Executive branch its Constitutional right to recess appoint when the Senate is in recess, through the fig leaf of forcing pro forma sessions on the Senate.