Presidents used to call special sessions of the Senate when they got inaugurated.

When the coiinstitutiuons was written they didn’t realize what would happen was that the term would bein March 4 but a session not until December. Congress never changed that date for assembling until the 20th amendment did it.

There was a situation where an election would be held in November then from, December through march 4 the lame duck Congress would meet and new representatives wouldn’t be sworn in for 13 months,. It didn’t happen all years that way.

the Senate just refused to go back into session for an extended period, the President would be powerless to fill offices of the United States.

he’s powerless now if tghey refuse to vote or refuse to confirm, and the filibuster makes it possible for less than a majority of the Senate to block a nomination.

But he can keep calling them back into session. Now it might it might be hard to get a quorum if enough Senators avoided that.

The part of the ruling saying you can’t make ‘recess’ appointments during pro forma sessions I’m fine with.

After 2010 the Senmate and the president were of the same party but the House prevented teh Senate from adjourning.

It used to be that confirmations could be done very quickly, but, especially since 1969, now they investigate a person first. Criminal financial and medical background check.

Condoleeeza Rice told BVob Schieffer that the FBI went back to her neighborhood when she was nominatyed for Secretary of state in 2005. They’d already done a check on her for 2001. A lot of this may not make too much sense.

I think the Senate winds. they can just aboid recessing altogether.

Again, the fundamental difference is the Senate was in recess when Bolton was nominated, and the Senate was not in recess when the appointments in question were made. Big effing deal.

JD – so what is to be gained by saying “the phrase has been misunderstood by courts and the executive and the legislature for 160 years, so we’re going to reinstate the definition that was abandoned five generations ago, and if you don’t like it, go through the process of changing the constitution?”

That’s the part i’m not understanding.

Comment by aphrael (402fa3) — 1/25/2013 @ 12:48 pm

It will restore the true and previously held meaning of the recess clause instead of the changed meaning by judicial fiat. I don’t understand why people who want to change the law just follow the rule of law. There is a process that can be followed, why not follow the process?