A Judicial End Run

New York Times ^ | January 17, 2004

[deport]

If they wanted to do a recess appointment they should have chosen Rogers or Estrada...

---

What if the others didn't want a recess appt..... I haven't read it in any articles but some have indicated in post that the others turned down recess appts.... I don't know but I'd bet most wouldn't want one....

[John Jorsett]

It doesn't matter who was the first recess appointment. They're ALL 'extremists' as far as the Dems are concerned, and they'd have kicked up the same fuss if it had been anyone else. The public, which is mostly oblivious and relies on press accounts to formulate its viewpoint, would have swallowed it to the same degree.

[MainFrame65]

A recess appointment lasts until the end of the NEXT session of the Senate. In the case of Judge Pickering, that is January, 2005. Compensation for recess appointees is a matter of legislation, and is prohibited except under certain conditions, as quoted below and shamelessly stolen from "michigander" on a previous thread and copied below.

Judge Pickering falls under (a2) below. His nomination was pending before the Senate when the current recess began, but it had been prevented prevented from acting due to the filibuster. The exception to this noted in the first sentence appears to apply to a recess appointment made during a previous recess and still pending. Note that his name must be submitted for reconfirmation within 40 days of the beginning of the next session.

I do not know if this can be filibustered, but I suspect that there is neither a rule nor a precedent for doing so. And if this is the case, a ruling from the parliamentarian against a filibuster, with confirmation by a simple majority, would establish a referrable precedent for the future. Yes, this would take away a tool that republicans might regret not having in the future, but I am ready for it to be gone.

******

U.S. Code
TITLE 5
PART III
Subpart D
CHAPTER 55
SUBCHAPTER I

Sec. 5503. - Recess appointments

(a) Payment for services may not be made from the Treasury of the United States to an individual appointed during a recess of the Senate to fill a vacancy in an existing office, if the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session and was by law required to be filled by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the appointee has been confirmed by the Senate. This subsection does not apply -

(1) if the vacancy arose within 30 days before the end of the session of the Senate;

(2) if, at the end of the session, a nomination for the office, other than the nomination of an individual appointed during the preceding recess of the Senate, was pending before the Senate for its advice and consent; or

(3) if a nomination for the office was rejected by the Senate within 30 days before the end of the session and an individual other than the one whose nomination was rejected thereafter receives a recess appointment.

(b) A nomination to fill a vacancy referred to by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Senate not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session of the Senate


160 posted on 01/16/2004 2:41:59 PM CST by michigander

[xzins]

The president can contract with the recess appointee to provide incidental non-legal, non-personal service. Through contracting, there's got to be a zillion ways to finesse this.

Other than that, it seems odd that a president in control of the house and senate couldn't make this happen in the area of funding.

[maryz]

If it had not been for the web, I would not have known Judge Pickering's true record

You ain't kiddin' there! Today's Boston Herald (supposedly our conservative paper) ran a news story on Pickering's appointment, making him sound racist, then amplified with a lengthy quote from Ted "the Swimmer" Kennedy, and closed with a quote from Pickering himself -- as if there's no one in the whole wide world who held a different view from Kennedy. I am disgusted. The Herald has been getting worse and worse, but this takes the cake.

[Dog Gone]

You're still misunderstanding the law. Pickering will be paid this year. If Bush has to do another recess appointment of him next year, then he would go without salary.

[B4Ranch]

Thank you

[Hacksaw]

Bush installed his choice for Senate leader, Bill Frist. What we got was another limp wrist RINO with no guts to challenge the dems to a fulltime filibuster. Bush has only himself to blame.

Frist has to get all the GOP to go along with him, and he only has a 51 seat majority, with recalcitrant senators. I used to blame Lott for the same, but I understand now what he is dealing with.

[aBootes]

Second your thoughts. Bump for the straight info

[deport]

He gets paid........ for this session until the recess appt ends in Jan. 2005.....

[highlander_UW]

I knew this was coming. The NYT thinks it's just peachy to filibuster judicial appointments as long as they're Republican appointees. I hope this is just the first of many Bush recess appointments, although I suspect this is just a shot across the Democratic bow to see if he can shake loose some of the other blocked Senate votes.

I agree, I hope Bush fills ever vacant judicial position over the next week.