Steering clear of recess appointments

August 13, 2007

In April, some White House recess appointments really annoyed Senate Democrats. Looking ahead, Harry Reid & Co. didn’t know what to expect Bush to do when the Senate broke for August, but the prospects were discouraging. One report suggested Senate Dems would limit the recess to just 10 days, while another noted that Reid would consider holding “quickie ‘pro forma’ sessions,” in which a local senator would keep the Senate technically in session, preventing the White House from acting up.

And then, we didn’t hear anything. The Senate really did leave town for a month, but is there a plan in place to deal with White House chicanery? Will Bush start filling vacancies, once again circumventing the whole notion of “advise and consent”? Apparently not.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has quietly shelved plans to hold the Senate in pro forma session this month after the White House agreed to refrain from making any executive appointments during the Senators’ August break.

Sources in both parties said the two parties reached an understanding whereby Reid agreed to move a series of outstanding White House nominations — 42 in total — before the Senate left town on Aug. 3. The Bush administration, meanwhile, agreed to refrain from making any surprise recess appointments over the break.

“Our leadership and their people sat down and decided it’s in nobody’s best interest to have this fight play out over August,” a senior Democratic Senate aide said. “Ultimately, no one wins.”

True. But it’s worth noting that a) Reid really did have a plan in place; and b) the White House’s promise is not unconditional.

First, Reid, to his credit, took the matter seriously.

Prior to their deal, Senate floor personnel had gotten word that they should prepare to work at least two pro forma sessions each week, coming in every Tuesday and Friday throughout the month, sources said.

“They were going to have to be in here every three days,” one Senate aide said.

Second, in exchange for honoring the advise-and-consent rule, Bush will see up-or-down votes on some key nominations.

Notably, Reid also has scheduled a confirmation vote on the controversial nomination of former Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) to become director of the Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 4, the day the Senate reconvenes for business. Nussle’s appointment has come under fire from Senate Democrats and earlier had been viewed as the most likely target for a Bush recess installment.

Still, it’s one less thing to worry about this August — assuming the White House keeps its word.

Bravo for both sides. Isn’t this the way government is always supposed to work?

  • Once again, Congress rewards Bush for his bad behavior. He receives a favor in return for promising not to completely abuse the system the way he had in the past. Can someone give Reid a spine transplant?

  • Reid may get away with it this time, but that does not change the fact that trusting BushCo is – and there is no nice way to put this accurately – stupid.

    Moreoever, Bush got something out of our fear of his misfeasance – he was rewarded for his past bad acts. This is horrible precedent and only enables and encourages him.

    Finally, is this how much we hate inconvenience? We are willing to give Bush 42 nominees just to avoid a few pro forma sessions that The People pay Congress well for?

    (Although I say go ahead and approve Nussle. Given how abysmally he did as House Budget Chair, he can only make Bush look worse.)

  • This only works if Bush didn’t lie. Anyone betting on ethical behavior from the bushies over the past seven years would be broke today.

    I’ll only believe this was actually a smart move if Bush hasn’t cheated before Congress comes back from their break.

  • I’ll believe it on September 4 when they reconvene and nothing happened.

    KARL ROVE RESIGNS!! Yeah, it’s real news. Leaving the end of the month and departing politics “to spend more time with his family.”

  • Presumably most of these 42 nominees will be confirmed. Otherwise what would be the point of keeping them from coming to a vote? So Reid is giving Bush dozens of confirmations (including some for lifetime seats?) in return for a promise not to make recess appointments over this one break? He can just make them on the weekend following the break, or the weekend after the 42 votes are complete. What am I missing?

  • Excuse me for being ignorant but tell me again how the WH stands to gain by not making recess appointments? Is it that there will be no committee hearings on nominations, that all nominees will come to the floor for an up or down vote? I guess now we get to see who owes who the most since histories and records and recommendations will never undergo close committee scrutiny.

    Based on past performances of Bush appointees the standing rule of thumb should be…if Bush WH nominated them they should be rejected, because nearly every Bush appointee has proven to be either corrupt, incompetent or totally misleading. Forget tossing a blind eye at them because the damage so far has been too great.

    When in doubt…vote them out. If you agree…look more deeply.

  • Don’t forget that if Reid kept the session open to block recess appointments, republicans could also move in and pass legislation in the absence of enough Democrats to get there fast enough to stop them.

    Its been done in the past, that’s how we got the world bank isn’t it? Called legislating by ambush. So it would have been a dangerous two edged sword Reid would have been wielding if he had kept the Senate in session to block recess appointments. That had been pointed out to Reid, that such a plan might have blown up in his face.

    So before calling Reid stupid or spineless for striking such a deal consider what legislation Republican plotters could have gotten through by showing up in force one day while an unattended congress was still legally in session.

    • Comments are closed.