« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Dems Work to Foil White House Recess Ploys, Again
It's not hard to imagine: while Harry Reid launches into his tryptophan-fueled nap after Thanksgiving dinner, President Bush makes a flurry of recess appointments.
The Senate majority leader doesn't want that to happen. So, Roll Call reports (sub. req.), Reid is mulling using a little procedural jujitsu. He could keep the Senate in what's called "pro forma" session, where official recess is avoided by having certain Senate floor personnel show up every three days. No recess, no recess appointments. Reid and Bush struck a deal in August in order to avoid that; Bush got a couple nominees through, but agreed to make no recess appointments. But:
Since then, however, tensions have risen between the two branches, and on Wednesday sources said Reid doesn’t seem willing to negotiate with the White House this time. Also, several Senate aides suggested that Bush is increasingly likely to exercise the option since the clock is ticking on the second term of his presidency.“I don’t think it should surprise anybody,” said one GOP leadership aide.
The chief candidate for a recess appointment would be surgeon general candidate and gay rights foe James Holsinger, but there would assuredly be others. With two days to go until the break, time is running out for a deal.
Comments (26)
Michael wrote on November 15, 2007 10:50 AM:NO DEAL. These politicians work for us and if they have to have their thanksgiving dinner on the senate floor to save our country from more criminals in power, then so be it. I'll fly to dc and help cook the gd dinner for them.
Bushie wrote on November 15, 2007 11:01 AM:As I posted at Thinkprogress:
NCBlueneck wrote on November 15, 2007 11:09 AM:The likelihood of pro forma sessions during Thanksgiving break is the same as Harry Reid having a pro forma Thanksgiving dinner. What a turkey!
Talk, bluster, and bluff... There are a couple of football field lengths of lines the Democrats have drawn in the sand. "Don't cross THIS line this time. And THIS time I really mean it! Don't make me propose another non-binding resolution!" The 98lb. weakling is kicking sand in the face of Charles Atlas, for God's sake! (For those of you old enough to remember...)
Patrick wrote on November 15, 2007 11:39 AM:But wait, I thought the reason we all had to go along with the nomination of "Muck"asey was because Bush would recess-appoint a much worse person for Attorney General and there was nothing the Democrats could do about it. So were they lying then or are they lying now?
Official A wrote on November 15, 2007 11:45 AM:Judging by comments here, on yesterday's post about failure to issue contempt citations, and elsewhere on TPM, I am surmising that the Democrat "leadership" has completely lost the confidence of anyone paying any attention at all. I know I am done with them.
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on November 15, 2007 12:12 PM:So IF Reid exercises the "pro forma" option, what are the details?
How many Senators have to show up every three days, and for what length of time? Do they have to spend that time on the Senate floor, or can they just check in with someone and stay close enough to show up if needed?
Juggling schedules would be a small price to pay, if they're serious about keeping Bush from playing his little "do it while no one's looking" game again.
brian wrote on November 15, 2007 12:14 PM:Why blame Reid ?
The Republicans allowed Rove and Cheney to browbeat them for six years. They rolled up every Tuesday and told the Senate exactly what they were going to do. No backtalk was allowed.
When Rove departed, did a single member of Congress say a single word of farewell ?
The White House then destroyed the Deparment of Justice. Congress would have to go through Justice to prosecute the bad guys. Now that is impossible.
The White House does not like adhering to the constitution. They have found ways to work around it. Is this Reid's fault ?
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on November 15, 2007 12:16 PM:Found my answer, in the US Senate Ref. Glossary:
pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/pro_forma_session.htm
Eric Stepp wrote on November 15, 2007 12:42 PM:As I mentioned in a blog post at the Cafe, I have no respect for Reid. Especially when it comes to Presidential appointments. He's already shown his weak spine in cow-towing to the Bush Administration, and I have no doubts he will do so again.
Steve wrote on November 15, 2007 12:42 PM:Reid could win back a decent amount of his lost credibility with me by taking this step.
Ron Cantrell wrote on November 15, 2007 12:46 PM:Hey, cut Reid and Pelosi little slack. The Senate has a democratic majority based on Lieberman caucusing with them, not a true majority. In addition, some of the Dem senators are Dems in name only, and need to be voted out. All their majority means in this senate is that they get to chair the committees and have the speaker.
It's almost as bad in the House, with the blue dogs dems. They definitely need to be gone.
They are trying. Don't waste your anger on them, put it on the R's where it belongs.
Eric Stepp wrote on November 15, 2007 12:53 PM:Ok, I forgot that Muckraker comments don't allow html, so my link didn't show up:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/eric_stepp/2007/nov/01/this_reid_broke_in_the_wind
Specifically, my problem was with the Lyle Laverty appointment. Sen Wyden had a hold on Laverty's appointment to the Interior, because Wyden was investigating ethics issues.
Yet, when Wyden went back to Oregon to be present during the birth of his twins, Reid broke Senatorial tradition and removed the hold on Laverty's appointment. It wasn't Rove, it wasn't Bush, it wasn't Cheney. It was Reid's call to ignore a hold placed by a fellow Democrat.
Joe wrote on November 15, 2007 1:03 PM:The real question is not recess at TG, but at the end of the session later this year. A recess appointment made during the current session can last until the end of the NEXT session--i.e., late in 2008. A recess appointment made AFTER the adjournment of the current (2007) session can last until the end of the 2009 session. That's not a typo. That wouldn't matter so much for those who "serve at the pleasure of the president", but for appointees to "independent" boards and commissions, who can only be removed "for cause," it could matter a whole lot.
In the late 90's this problem was addressed by agreements, between Clinton and GOP Senate, specifying who could be recessed.
Joe wrote on November 15, 2007 1:07 PM:Slight correction: a recess appointment made EARLY in the 2008 session can last til the end of '09. The problem is that the current (2007) session has to end, even if ever-so-briefly, before the 2008 session can convene. So there's a built-in gap. I'm guessing Bush will try to "stand in" it.
Jacqueline Grant wrote on November 15, 2007 1:26 PM:I called Senator Reid yesterday asking him to keep someone there over the holidays to avert recess appointments . I said I'd come to Washington myself to be there over the holidays to keep Bush from making more unaccoutable recess appointment s.
MaxGowan wrote on November 15, 2007 1:27 PM:I hope he makes sure this dosent happen !!!11
While I have also been disappointed in the performances of the Democratic Congress, let us not forget that were it not for the Dems in the majority, we'd still have Fredo as our AG - and would still be doing damage.
nellieh wrote on November 15, 2007 1:41 PM:Lucy (Bush) is telling Charlie Brown (Reid) she won't pull the football away this time. Right.
Garrigus Carraig wrote on November 15, 2007 1:44 PM:Wait. Aren't we at the point that threats from Reid are so patently toothless that they don't rise to the level of TPM front-page news? Or are we not at that point yet? How much benefit of the doubt does he get?
Seriously, hands up if you believe there's a whelk's chance in a supernova that he'll go to the mat over Holsinger.
Snarkman wrote on November 15, 2007 2:56 PM:I guess Cheney will just have to open his Man-Sized safe and see what dirt he has on Reid (and his family), again.
Disgusted & Disappointed wrote on November 15, 2007 3:42 PM:The only leadership Pelosi has are those big tits that stick out in front of her.
Rodney wrote on November 15, 2007 4:00 PM:Her & Reid are selling us down the river every day.
I wonder if recall of Pelosi is "off the table"
Reid should require Feinstein and Lieberman to stay in the Senate chambers during the holidays.
Stan T wrote on November 15, 2007 4:22 PM:Asinine. I've said it before: The only reason for pro forma sessions is if they already gave in to twisted administration interpretations of the recess appointment clause.
One court case interpreting the clause and we could avoid this theater every few months. Clearly the clause is not meant to be used so the President can wait out the Senate to avoid oversight--it's for vacancies that *arise during* not *exist during* Senate recesses.
See Prof. Rappaport, 52 UCLA L Rev 1487
The call for originalism vanishes when necessary to preserve administration abuses. How convenient.
Josh C. wrote on November 15, 2007 5:35 PM:>>But wait, I thought the reason we all had to go along with the nomination of "Muck"asey was because Bush would recess-appoint a much worse person for Attorney General and there was nothing the Democrats could do about it. So were they lying then or are they lying now?>Asinine. I've said it before: The only reason for pro forma sessions is if they already gave in to twisted administration interpretations of the recess appointment clause.
One court case interpreting the clause and we could avoid this theater every few months. Clearly the clause is not meant to be used so the President can wait out the Senate to avoid oversight--it's for vacancies that *arise during* not *exist during* Senate recesses.<<
Good luck with that. Appointments that existed during a recess instead of occurred during a recess have been going on for at least 100 years.
Also, in the early days when Congress was only in session for something like 3 months, if they refused to confirm someone for a position, then went on break for 9 months, one could argue that this clause should be used at the time, especially if it's an important position.
So I think both historical precedence and an practical example of how it could have been used in that manner early on would make it hard for the clause to be interpreted in the way you'd like it to be.
charlie kennedy wrote on November 16, 2007 1:27 PM:Can you imagine the parade of wingers that Bush is going to appoint for his last year in office if Reid gives him the opening?
I don't which is the bigger story in the next few days - this or the telecom immunity issue.
Bruce S. wrote on November 16, 2007 1:28 PM:Why can't the senate just go out of session for a day anytime it wants to cancel recess appointments?
Hugo wrote on November 17, 2007 10:50 PM:Why don't you big talkers run for office and show us how to do it better?