commentaries

From the article: "A Republican minority has managed to strip workers and consumers of fundamental legal rights." One wonders about the point of such recalcitrance. The President's been re-elected, after all, so what's left on the Senate To-Do List? Seeing that he doesn't get credit for presiding over a robust economic recovery?

Unfortunately for Harold, the constitution says that the Senate must confirm certain appointees and recess appointments can only be done when the Senate is not in session. It's not just a technicality that the Senate was in session at the time. The court was correct. Take your anger out on the Senate, not the constitution. The senate has this power to prevent a monarchy (No, I'm not arguing the President is trying to create a monarchy, you conspiracy nuts out there)

wilson55436: It's not as cut and dried as you think. In 2004, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Senate was not in session under similar circumstances. The Supreme Court will have to rule on which Circuit is correct.

This is the best you can ask and the best that you can get from the regressive party.

The bigger danger with these GOP-TEA Party tactics, which also include gaming the Electoral College, is that they delegitimize government in general. Civil society and order depend on buy in from the populace, and as voters begin to see the implicit fraud in the system they will begin going outside it with dire consequences for democracy and order.

This is not a "danger with these GOP-TEA Party tactics." This is quite simply a much-needed clarification of when the Senate is in session. Since Presidential appointments are supposed to be confirmed (or rejected) by the Senate, it makes perfect sense that there be very few opportunities to circumvent this requirement. The recess appointment was intended to be a little-used emergency action, and tightening that up seems to be a return to the intended checks and balances.

Re: "The recess appointment was intended to be a little-used emergency action, and tightening that up seems to be a return to the intended checks and balances." When does blatant failure to perform the Senate's advise and consent function rise to the level of emergency action, my4cents?

The Senate is NOT failing every time they refuse to accept a Presidential appointment. If an appointment is not accepted by the Senate, then it may well be a failure of the President to appoint an acceptable candidate. It NEVER rises to the level of an emergency action while the Senate is in session - the only issue is defining what it means to be in recess. If the President and the Senate can not agree, then three things can occur: 1) The President appoints someone else 2) The President performs a recess appointment DURING A RECESS 3) The people elect a new Senate or President at the next election.

I DO believe that the Senate has oftentimes acted in a very partisan, negative manner with their advise and consent duties. However, the worst of it began with a Supreme Court nominee named Bork who was mistreated and maligned by a Democratic Senate.

my4cents said: "The Senate is NOT failing every time they refuse to accept a Presidential appointment."------------- But refusing to accept an appointment is not the issue. If they vote against an appointment then fine, the president should appoint someone else. But they are simply refusing to bring many appointments up for any vote, sometimes for YEARS. They are refusing to fulfill their constitutional "advise and consent" role. In the case of the National Labor Relations Board nominees in this case, the Senate's failure to act means that the NLRB doesn't have a quorum to do business and can't perform their responsibilities. Bork's case is not an example of a failure to act - he received a vote and the appointment was defeated.

hawkeye - There is certainly a difference in the fact that Bork ultimately received a vote, however these are the rules that the Senate has determined they will use. Both Democrats and Republicans have operated this way. It is up to the President to work WITH the Senate based on the policies and procedures that both sides have shown they will use. If you want the procedures themselves changed, then push Reid and others to propose and implement those changes. None of them have fought to change these procedures in any significant way.