Senate Nano-Sessions

[maddog]

More than 165 nominations currently await Senate action.

On the bright side, this is 165 * ~$150k per year in salary, plus match that in benefits, plus all the staffers, job expenses, etc. that each of them would have... One could conservatively estimate that each of these is saving us taxpayers at least $1M per year.

Just think how much more we could save if we, the taxpayers, chose NOT to perform our constitutional duty, and failed to elect anyone to the House or the Senate! No one would represent me better than Elijah Cummings, Barbara Mikulski, and Ben Cardin do. Really -- no one!!! I mean, complete voids would do a better job than those three!

 

[Random]

"What goes around, comes around". It's a time honored tradition to use recess appointments to bypass the usual track, even if the appointments might be controversial. Now it's fair game for the republicans to pull the same stunt when a democrat is in the White House. It's not clear to me that the democrats have looked at the long term cost of what they are doing. It is taking short term gain with long term losses. Stupid, but not out of character for the least effective majority party that I can recall.

Um, Republicans did exactly this sort of thing with many Clinton nominations during the 90’s. This is why criticism of Democratic Senators and Congressmen on this subject is not finding many sympathizers on the left.

What goes around does indeed come around…

 

[Gurdur]

My heart is bleeding for Bush and BPSCG. Goddammit, I'm just such a bleeding-heart.

 

[geni]

"What goes around, comes around". It's a time honored tradition to use recess appointments to bypass the usual track, even if the appointments might be controversial. Now it's fair game for the republicans to pull the same stunt when a democrat is in the White House. It's not clear to me that the democrats have looked at the long term cost of what they are doing. It is taking short term gain with long term losses. Stupid, but not out of character for the least effective majority party that I can recall.

Oh well always the alturnative option of trying to apoint people so well qualified the senate would look stupid to reject them.

 

[Praktik]

My heart is bleeding for Bush and BPSCG. Goddammit, I'm just such a bleeding-heart.

You should get that checked out man...

 

[Tony]

Fixed it for you.

And of course, being the fair-minded person we all know you to be, you'll have no objection when a Republican Senate majority someday pulls the same stunt against a Democratic president.

No one is fooled by your hiding behind the constitution to apologize for your dear leader.

 

[BPSCG]

Oh well always the alturnative option of trying to apoint people so well qualified the senate would look stupid to reject them.

If the Senate wants to look stupid, it doesn't have to do anything different from what it does every day.

Kallsop nailed it; the Dems are taking a short-term gain with long-term losses. The Repubs will do exactly the same thing some day, and the Democratic president will have no standing whatsoever to complain. Unless some way is found to challenge this, it means the Dems have found a way to kill part of the Constitution without having to go to the trouble of actually getting it repealed.

 

[Darat]

How can this be unconstitutional?

 

[BPSCG]

How can this be unconstitutional?

It's not unconstitutional, at least as far as I understand. The president has the power to make what are called "recess appointments" under article 3, section 2:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

What the Dems are doing is saying, "Okay, we won't go into recess; we'll open and close regularly for literally a few seconds every few days, for the express purpose of doing nothing more - literally - than circumventing that article of the Constitution, because we don't like the current president."

 

[Darat]

It's not unconstitutional, at least as far as I understand. The president has the power to make what are called "recess appointments" under article 3, section 2: What the Dems are doing is saying, "Okay, we won't go into recess; we'll open and close regularly for literally a few seconds every few days, for the express purpose of doing nothing more - literally - than circumventing that article of the Constitution, because we don't like the current president."

Sorry that but doesn't answer my question of how it is unconstitutional? Doesn't the Senate have the constitutional power to control their own recesses?

 

[BPSCG]

Sorry that but doesn't answer my question of how it is unconstitutional? Doesn't the Senate have the constitutional power to control their own recesses?

I said it was not unconstitutional. Yes, the Senate does have the power to control its own sessions. What they are doing here is staying in continuous session for the express purpose of preventing the president from carrying out his duties; no Senate business whatsoever is conducted at these nanosessions. They won't convene for the purpose of actually holding hearings and votes on the nominees, many of whom would probably be approved if voted on by the full Senate. Hgc and others complain that these nominees are utterly reprehensible (I think "political hacks" was the term hgc used), but if that were true, the Democratic majority in the Senate would have no trouble actually voting on their nominations and rejecting them. They're reprehensible to Harry Reid and hgc, but not to the full Senate.

Again, there's nothing unconstitutional about what Reid is doing here. But it sets a terrible precedent for future presidents when the tables are reversed, as they will surely be.

 

[Random]

It's not unconstitutional, at least as far as I understand. The president has the power to make what are called "recess appointments" under article 3, section 2: What the Dems are doing is saying, "Okay, we won't go into recess; we'll open and close regularly for literally a few seconds every few days, for the express purpose of doing nothing more - literally - than circumventing that article of the Constitution, because we don't like the current president."

Yeah, but the President also has to get his appointees in with the consent of the Senate. If the Senate did not hold pro forma sessions, Bush could simply not submit any candidates until the Senate went into recess and then use recess appointments to fill the government with right-wing nutcases who would never get past a Democratic Senate in a million years. How is that not the President circumventing the constitution?

 

[Darat]

I said it was not unconstitutional. Yes, the Senate does have the power to control its own sessions.

Sorry - it was your earlier use of the words "circumventing the Constitution" that was confusing me. So the President has some powers granted by the constitution and so does the Senate and they can both use them (legally) as they see fit. I see no circumventing of the constitution merely both using it in a legal manner. I would suggest your problem is with the constitution itself - you don't appear to agree with some of the powers over in effect procedural matters, it grants the Senate.

Again, there's nothing unconstitutional about what Reid is doing here. But it sets a terrible precedent for future presidents when the tables are reversed, as they will surely be.

Has this type of political maneuvering never been used by the Senate in the past? I'm quite surprised if that is the case. After all parliamentary bodies are usually quite canny about using the powers their constitutions give them to push forward their agendas so it would be quite unusual no Senate in the last couple of hundred years had realised this particular procedural power the constitution gives them.

 

[Random]

Again, there's nothing unconstitutional about what Reid is doing here. But it sets a terrible precedent for future presidents when the tables are reversed, as they will surely be.

Again, Republicans played similar tricks with Clinton nominees. By using wording like this, you strongly imply that this sort of thing has never happened before, when it is surely not the case. Why do you seem so eager to flush this fact down the memory hole?

 

[BPSCG]

Yeah, but the President also has to get his appointees in with the consent of the Senate. If the Senate did not hold pro forma sessions, Bush could simply not submit any candidates until the Senate went into recess and then use recess appointments to fill the government with right-wing nutcases who would never get past a Democratic Senate in a million years. How is that not the President circumventing the constitution?

It would be - if a president were to actually do it. Get back to me when that happens. In the meantime, this is something that is actually happening now.

 

[BPSCG]

Sorry - it was your earlier use of the words "circumventing the Constitution" that was confusing me. So the President has some powers granted by the constitution and so does the Senate and they can both use them (legally) as they see fit. I see no circumventing of the constitution merely both using it in a legal manner. I would suggest your problem is with the constitution itself - you don't appear to agree with some of the powers over in effect procedural matters, it grants the Senate.

Okay, maybe we're disagreeing about nothing (or strenuously agreeing...?); I meant circumvent in the sense of artfully getting around an obstacle, rather than destroying it. I think the dictionary backs me up there.

Has this type of political maneuvering never been used by the Senate in the past? I'm quite surprised if that is the case. After all parliamentary bodies are usually quite canny about using the powers their constitutions give them to push forward their agendas so it would be quite unusual no Senate in the last couple of hundred years had realised this particular procedural power the constitution gives them.

I've read a few stories about this issue and none of them mention its previous use. But now that it has been used, it's hard to see how future Senates will refrain.

 

[BPSCG]

Again, Republicans played similar tricks with Clinton nominees. By using wording like this, you strongly imply that this sort of thing has never happened before, when it is surely not the case. Why do you seem so eager to flush this fact down the memory hole?

See my previous reply to Darat; if you can find an article showing how Repubs have used this trick before, I'll turn my fire on them, too.

In other words, "Got evidence?"

 

[Random]

See my previous reply to Darat; if you can find an article showing how Repubs have used this trick before, I'll turn my fire on them, too.

In other words, "Got evidence?"

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up." -Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) May 8, 2005

Does that work for you? If not, you can just google "Clinton nominees". You should find a bunch of stuff there without even trying.

In liberal circles, Republican use of oddball Senate tactics to block Clinton nominees is well known. It's like you're asking me to prove California exists...

 

[Trakar]

Fixed it for you.

And of course, being the fair-minded person we all know you to be, you'll have no objection when a Republican Senate majority someday pulls the same stunt against a Democratic president.

Your "fix" extended too far, this administration is the only one trying to circumvent the constitution. A future Republican Senate majority would first have to find a Dem President not willing to compromise and put up an acceptably moderate nominee.

 

[Trakar]

Evidence, please.

Evidence?

Orin Hatch