Supreme Court hints it may limit president's recess-appointments power

[steven]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court hinted Monday it may move to limit a presidential power used since the days of George Washington to fill high-level vacancies during Senate recesses.

A top Obama administration attorney ran into sharp skepticism from justices while defending the presidential power, granted in the Constitution, to bypass the Senate and make recess appointments when lawmakers are not in session.

Use of this power has grown more controversial in recent decades as both Republican and Democratic presidents have clashed with Senates controlled by the opposing party. The Obama administration says many of its nominees to agencies and courts in recent years have been blocked by Republican filibusters for political reasons. Republicans say Democrats did the same thing during the George W. Bush administration.

In recent times, most presidents have relied at one point or another on recess appointments to break partisan deadlocks and see their nominees seated temporarily. But Monday's oral arguments marked the first time the law has been debated at the Supreme Court.

The case calls on the high court to decide whether the Constitution allows the president to circumvent the Senate when it refuses to confirm his nominees and what exactly constitutes a recess.

Last year, a U.S. appeals court in Washington said President Obama violated the Constitution when he used the recess-appointment power to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. The Senate was not meeting then, but it was holding brief "pro-forma sessions" to indicate it was not on a true recess.

Justice Elena Kagan described the recess-appointment power as "a historical relic," designed for an era when lawmakers could be gone from Washington for months. "This is not the horse-and-buggy era," she said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#ixzz2qM7vGArw

[nogods]

Republicans say Democrats did the same thing during the George W. Bush administration.

Yes, they did the same thing...until the republicans threaten to use the "nuclear option" - then the democrats backed down to preserve the traditions of the senate.

But when the same thing happened this year, the republicans said "go ahead, we dare you to use the nuclear option, we ain't backing down for nothin' "

And then when the democrats used the nuclear option for judicial appointees the republicans had a temper tantrum about it.

They got what they asked for and then complained about it.