Reid’s plan to block Bush’s recess appointments.
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush’s devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.” U.S. News reports:
We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie “pro forma” session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he’s the new sheriff in town.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
79 Responses to “Reid’s plan to block Bush’s recess appointments.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Reid grew a pair! This is me loving that!
May 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pmGive em hell Harry!
May 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pmgood on Harry that means we wont see Bolton at the World bank than …Phew
May 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI wish he had used the samekind of procedural cunnung…
…to stand up for the American workers…
May 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWell well now. Let’s see if Bush finds this move “unacceptable.”
May 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWow doggie, I’m lovin this..8)….Blesings
May 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pmMichael Moore
‘Triumphant Return’
“After the screening, several hard-nosed U.S. critics and journalists admitted to crying during the film.”
– The Wall Street Journal
“Brilliant and Uplifting”
– FOX News
“Comedy, Poignancy and Outrage”
– Variety
“Very Strong and Very Honest”
May 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm– Stephen Schaefer, Boston Globe
Let’s just hope this works…
Off topic - Does anyone have any info about Sam Seder’s show called Seder on Sunday which is supposed to start today 4pm(?) EST on AAR? It was announced on Mike Malloy’s show last week but I can not find this confirmed anywhere.
May 20th, 2007 at 3:55 pmExcellent plan! If people are upset at having to travel back to Washington to protect the country from having more crooks take over, too bad. That is their job, their sworn duty. If they have something more important to do, they should quit pretending to be responsible members of the government and go do it.
Thank you, Harry Reid! Don’t back down.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pmThank god!
Democrats are finally fighting back against Bush’s dirty tricks.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pmBush should be handcuffed before August, I have a feeling. Good for Reid though!!
May 20th, 2007 at 4:05 pmI love this in concept, but I question having this “leaked” to the public for two reasons:
1) This gives the Administration ample time to counter this move if possible.
2) When someone announces strategy beforehand, it often makes me wonder if it is just a bluff.
Just do the damn thing in the summer and use the element of surprise to your advanatage.
Now if we could get them to impeach Gonzales, that might show this Congress actually had some balls….
May 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pmThat is awesome.
It’s too bad he has to resort to such tactics to keep
the two year old in office from his manipulations and
tantrums.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:08 pmMaybe all the summer votes will run some of the lobbyist-financed lard off that walrus, “Coach” Hastert.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pmIsn’t Reid just taking orders from the LDS elders?
May 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pmIs Reid growing a spine? It’s about time.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pmNow if we could get them to impeach Gonzales, that might show this Congress actually had some balls….
Comment by Mike
This might be a first step in that particular political dance. If Bush thought Gonzo would survive until he could replace him this summer, this would be a move to force Gonzo out.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pmDidn’t bush already violate this 10 day understanding with his recent appointment of the Belgian ambassador?
Their has long been an understanding that a President would only make recess appointments when the Congress was out of session for more than 10 days. But it’s just an understanding. The constitution itself makes no mention of a time period.
So if Bush really wants to make some recess appointments, he can wait 1 day, 5 days, 9 days, then make the appointment. There is nothing the Senate could do to stop that appointment, but they could retailiate.
If for instance, Bush were to appoint a new Attorney General under recess, all hell would break loose. There would be retaliation, the Senate may refuse to approve anything until the situation was remedied.
Still, since Bush has already violated this understanding, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him violate this understanding again, especially for lesser offices.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pmIt’s about damn time!
I have not been particularly impressed with Reid. I think he may be a better back-room player than public face of Dems. I have been hoping that Feingold would move up to Majority Leader.
But this is a good move, particularly with all of the open seats that exist now, and more that are coming as resignations connected to the Gonzo accellerate.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThere’s conflicting views on how long Congress has to be recessed for a recess appointment to be made.
Bush’s recent Ambassador nomination was made during a long weekend recess.
I’m glad that Senator Reid is doing this, although I suspect they’ll have to remain in session with absolutely no recess to stop Bush from doing this. I doubt a 10-day recess will mean anything different to him than a 30-day recess or a 1-day recess.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pmGod Bless him!
May 20th, 2007 at 4:27 pmFinally someone taking my advice.
That’s what I thought, too.
I’m pretty sure that Bush’s point of view is that he can make recess appointments during Senate lunch breaks.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pmCan we start a pool over who will be the first GOPer to complain about doing his job, how being in D.C. is just so anti-family and such.
What a bunch of weenies. It’s like they all have a split personality. On the one hand they act like bullies, but they can immediately turn on the poor me, i’m such a victim weenie boy, pity-pity personality.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:34 pmI doubt a 10-day recess will mean anything different to him than a 30-day recess or a 1-day recess.
Comment by ds — May
Which is a set-up for another possible constitutional crisis.
Bush is like a kid, who steals a car for the first time: the first thing he does is gets on the highway, to see how fast it will go before the wheels fall off. He could care less what condition it’ll be in when he finally ditches it.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pmGood point, ds. There’s also this “little trick” up Bush’s sleeve:
“. . . and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper . . .”
May 20th, 2007 at 4:40 pmbarfly,
how do you know about the thoughts of a kid stealing a car?…….
;)
;)
(please don’t take it the wrong way… JK)
May 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pmI’ll believe it when I see it.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:45 pmComment by trueblue —
Well, a friend once told me about it … Yeah! that’s the ticket!
May 20th, 2007 at 4:45 pmAnother applicable clause: “Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”
May 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pmbarfly,
I knew there must be a reason…
;)
May 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pmNo sleep till 1-20-09.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:52 pmWorking during the summer? That’s so… declasse. Christ, it’s not like being in Congress is a *job* or something.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:56 pmNearly everyone commenting here is still operating under the premise that we still have a functioning government and democracy. Bush does not play by the rule of law as he does not believe he is subject to it; he believes that Congress is merely a sugestion box to be ignored at his whim. His authoritarianism is boundless as is his drive for despotism. Bush has committed so many trangressions, criminal acts, violations of the Constitution and impeachable offenses; yet he remains in office untouched and showered with impunity. It will take more than parlimentary tricks to send a message to Bush and I suspect we are past the point of reigning this imperialistic and tyrannical dictator in. Democracy is dead. Welcome to the Kingdom of the United States.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWould it be within the “rule of law” for Bush to adjourn Congress?
May 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pmThank God.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pmCharlie, the president may only adjourn Congress in cases where there is a disagreement between the houses. Since both houses are currently in the hands of the same party, this seems unlikely.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThose damm liberal democrats, they won’t let us get away with anything.
Boo Hoo
I want my mommie!!!!!!!!!
May 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pmDavid (#18), re this comment:
“…
Actually, what the Constitution states is that the President can make a recess appointment only when a position is VACATED during a recess. I’m thinking this goes back to times when communication was limited and Congress depended on horseback to return to town. All Presidents have ignored the letter of the Constitution regarding this, and so it is not likely to go back to its strict constructionist roots.
I’ll tell you what worries me the most:
Why is Bush garnering all of this precedent-setting unitary executive power if we are actually going to have a legitimate election in 2008?
May 20th, 2007 at 5:31 pmWhy is Bush garnering all of this precedent-setting unitary executive power if we are actually going to have a legitimate election in 2008?
That’s what I’ve been worrying about. Of course, there’s a whole bunch of people out there who support a unitary executive, so perhaps Bush is setting this up for his successor, who’ll win by stealing the next election.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pmWouldn’t a 12:00.01 a.m. appointment on the 11th day be enough time for Bush to inflict his damage?
This administration and government is a joke. I think the joke will be on Reid. (Unfortunately).
Jaded with the whole fake democracy in which we live.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pmReid has to make sure that he keeps the Senate from going into recess over the Memorial Day period, because that’s when Bush is going to try and push through replacements for Gonzo and McNulty.
And yes, Bush won’t wait ten days. He might not even wait three days. He wants Congress to go away and leave him alone.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pmLets see him do it. Talk is very very cheap. I for one won’t believe it until it happens. I just don’t trust the dems.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pmWouldn’t a 12:00.01 a.m. appointment on the 11th day be enough time for Bush to inflict his damage?
Comment by questionable #40
…Bushiva can’t stay awake that long…
May 20th, 2007 at 6:03 pmLove it.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pmOur country is at stake, so its the only patriotic thing to do. Good job Reid, I wonder about you sometimes. Now lets get down to impeaching Gonzales. Don’t waste time funding the war, our troops are dealing with worse, and they’ll understand.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pmA new sherriff? That’s a laugh. Congress now has an approval rating lower than the President, and THAT’S saying something.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThis is great!
May 20th, 2007 at 7:27 pmLet Bush’s “summer hires” continue to sell hot dogs and cotton candy on the carnival midways, where they are qualified.
The idea is laughable.
One Democrat cannot run the senate during vacation because all it would take is for two Republicans to show up and overrule the one Democrat and vote to end the session or even confirm nominees on a voice vote.
I also find the feigned outrage over recess appointments to be hilarious given how many recess appointments were made by Clinton.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pm#48…
May 20th, 2007 at 7:34 pmdoes your mom know you got out of your box?
Dont be surprised if the repugs sneak a dozen or so senators back into washington and then they suddenly appear on the senate floor during one of these mini sessions and ram through some kind of stupid legislation…
May 20th, 2007 at 7:45 pmClinton did not have the luxury of working with a Democratically controlled Congress.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:47 pmIf my memory serves me correctly, Bush could not get Bolton confirmed with a Congress controlled by his own party…
I’ll tell you what worries me the most:
Why is Bush garnering all of this precedent-setting unitary executive power if we are actually going to have a legitimate election in 2008?
Comment by Jan — May 20, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Jan, I’ve been asking this exact question for months. Indeed, if the Deciderer-In-Chief is out of office for good come 1/9/2008, then why is he trying to grab as much power as he can, as fast as he can?
Also, another interesting question for you all to ponder…
CentCom Commander Gen. William Fallon reportedly “vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.â€
Huh? Are we looking at the possibility of a miliatry coup to take Bush out of office? And, are we also looking at the possibility of an extremist-evangelical military coup determined to keep Bush in office at all cost? Are these 2 groups in a horse race to see who gets there first? This could all get a LOT scarier before it gets better.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pmgood idea… next, let’s do something about those damned signing statements!
May 20th, 2007 at 7:54 pmI also find the feigned outrage over recess appointments to be hilarious given how many recess appointments were made by Clinton.
Comment by X — May 20, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Did you approve of Clinton’s recess appointments?
May 20th, 2007 at 7:59 pmalso find the feigned outrage over recess appointments to be hilarious given how many recess appointments were made by Clinton.
Comment by X — May 20, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Did Clinton turn around and appoint individuals who had not been able to make it thru the Congressional approval process, in effect thumbing his nose at the Legislative branch?
BTW, Clinton made 139 recess appointments in 8 yrs. Bush is up to 168 in 6 & 1/2 yrs.
May 20th, 2007 at 8:03 pm“Did you approve of Clinton’s recess appointments?”
Of course not, but I didn’t pretend like it was some sort of Hitleresque and unprecedented abuse of power.
I also see a difference between a recess appointment of someone who is being blocked by a minority of senators and a recess appointment fo someone who could not get a majority in a straight up or down vote.
Thus, Clinton was wrong to appoint Bill Lan Lee as a majority clearly opposed him, while he would have been in his rights to recess William Weld as majority in the senate clearly would have voted for him if his name came up for a vote.
May 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm“Of course not, but I didn’t pretend like it was some sort of Hitleresque and unprecedented abuse of power.
Comment by X — May 20, 2007 @ 8:05 pm”
Your side most definitely did. Remember the Impeachment proceedings? You really don’t think that was about lying now do you?
May 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pmConfirmation? We don’t need no stinkin’ Confirmation!
May 20th, 2007 at 9:05 pmthe republic of stupidity:
I thought Clinton, not Bush, used recess appointments 169 times? And, yes, some of those were individuals who were not able to make it thru the Congressional approval process, in effect thumbing his nose at the Legislative branch.
Joel:
Well, that’s YOUR interpretation of the word “them” since there’s never been a case where the President has exercised the power to adjourn Congress. “Them” could also refer to a disagreement between the President and Congress.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:48 pmRepugs are all over the media saying that the Dems haven’t accomplished anything - that they’re failures - that they have let the people down - yet, threats like this from Reid are manna for many of us.
Continue to show everyone that Bush is the problem; stymie his abuses of power — let him embarass himself.
Go, Reid — show Bush that there are others who can play the game too.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:50 pmMarie:
So, it’s enough for you that Reid and Pelosi continue to issue empty “threats”?
May 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pmNow I may reconsider and vote Democratic. But they better keep up the offense.
That Iraqi oil law is an abomination of Democratic principles. I’m waiting to see how they handle it in lieu of this new development:
” Iraqi Vice President Opposes Draft Oil Bill”
Iraq — Tariq al-Hashimi, Head of Iraqi Islamic party and Sunni leader, addresses to the media during a press conference in the headquarters of Iraqi Islamic party in Baghdad, 30 Mar. 2006
Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi (file photo)
(epa)
May 20, 2007 — Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi says he opposes a draft oil law, saying it gives too many concessions to foreign oil companies.
http://www.rferl.org/ featuresarticle/ 2007/ 5/ 56e63227-06cf-4915-90ec-30caec4427cc.html
Bravo!
He’s willing to stand up to Bush and Cheney.
Let’s see how brave Harry and Nancy really are.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:07 pmCharlie,
May 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pmNo, threats are not enough, but I continue to have hope that Reid and Pelosi will follow through on their warnings with actions.
Personally, I want a lot more action in Congress, and a lot faster — but it doesn’t work that way. I am trying to remain hopeful.
If Reid was playing poker he would tell GWB
“I caught the nut flush on the flop so bet at your own risk”
What kind of asine jackass would show their hand 4 months before.
Idiot Reid
May 20th, 2007 at 11:36 pmJeez, don’t tell Gannon about the ‘quickie’ sessions, he’ll be roaming the halls of Congress looking to get in on the action.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:44 pmI thought Clinton, not Bush, used recess appointments 169 times? And, yes, some of those were individuals who were not able to make it thru the Congressional approval process, in effect thumbing his nose at the Legislative branch.
Joel, according to Wikipedia, Clinton made 140 recess appointments and Bush 167.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:48 pmGood on him! This whole recess appointment thing should be done away with altogether. Or, it should say that a president can appoint someone during a recess, but the minute the congress is back in session, that recess appointment either has to come up for confirmation or the person has to leave.
It’s really too bad that the Democrats need to have “tricks up their sleeves” to stop Bush from doing what he does so well - screw with the public.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am“Repugs are all over the media saying that the Dems haven’t accomplished anything - that they’re failures - that they have let the people down”
Well the Repugs are right, the Democrats haven’t been able to accomplish anything. But, it is not for lack of trying. It is for the lack of a veto proof majority. Between the Repubs stonewalling, filibustering and Bush’s threats of vetos, it has been quite impossible for the Democrats to get any legislation passed. So, I say, stop trying. Just tell the public that since the Repugs are going to stop them from getting any legislation through, they will spend the next two years investigating the Bush Crime Family. After 6 years of no accountability and oversight, I think two years of oversight is in order. And then impeach Bush. It doesn’t matter if he is out of office before the impeachment can be accomplished. Just placing articles of impeachment on him is necessary to show the American public that we are still a country of laws and that the people breaking the laws must be held accountable.
Think about it Repugs….do you really want a Democratic President to have the kind of power that Bush has created. Do you really want to see the Democrats turn every branch of the government into an arm of the Democratic party?
May 21st, 2007 at 12:35 amGo Harry!
May 21st, 2007 at 7:51 amAre we looking at the possibility of a miliatry coup to take Bush out of office? And, are we also looking at the possibility of an extremist-evangelical military coup determined to keep Bush in office at all cost? This could all get a LOT scarier before it gets better.
Comment by the republic of stupidity — May 20, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
What country do you LIVE in? How ridiculous can you be? Yeah, a military coup right here in the good ole U.S. of A. You need to work on developing some courage so you aren’t so scared all the time. And maybe get a sense of reality while you’re at it.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:14 amTwo points here:
(1) I think Reid is doing this specifically to prevent a recess appointment of a replacement for Gonzales or any other Cabinet-level posts. If the odd ambassadorship goes through, so be it. But could you imagine, say, Bush pardoning Bob Ney and then naming him AG?
(2) The Senate can’t hold an impeachment trial until/unless someone is impeached by the House. So if you want to see Gonzales impeached, “yell” at the House, not Harry.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:16 amGo Reid. Give em hell!
May 21st, 2007 at 10:29 amFunny enough, I made recess appointments and no one on the left seemed to complain.
they actually loved it when I made recess appointments that would have never been approved by the Republican held Senate.
hmmmmm….I wonder why my left wing fellows are such hypocrites.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:35 amI supposed it’d be all to easy to use the ole “Clinton” card to squabble about how this is unfair. There is one major, let me reiterate, MAJOR difference, BUSH is a complete and utter failure who consistantly brings in corrupt appointments who are underqualified to positions. Clinton, well, I don’t think anyone can honestly say his tenure was a failure. Reid is doing the only sensible thing to oversee Bush appointments which DESPERATELY need oversight.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:50 amCan’t Congress pass or amend the law (if one exists) which defines what a recess actually is? If they can define a recess as any time congress is not in session for more than 45 days, then it would not be possible for any president to make recess appointments. And maybe this doesn’t need to be a law so much as a rule of congres or something.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:27 pm#52: that’s Adm. Fallon, not Gen.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pmRe what Jan wrote in #18 “Why is Bush garnering all of this precedent-setting unitary executive power if we are actually going to have a legitimate election in 2008?” This is exactly my fear. If there was a chance in the world of President Hillary Clinton getting this power, they wouldn’t be going down this road.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pmI’m pretty sure that Bush’s point of view is that he can make recess appointments during Senate lunch breaks.
There is already precedent. Teddy Roosevelt made several appointments during a 1 day Senate recess.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pmDid Clinton turn around and appoint individuals who had not been able to make it thru the Congressional approval process, in effect thumbing his nose at the Legislative branch?
Yep. Several times.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm