[Cboldt]

Recess appointments are temporary, and traditionally once one has accepted a recess appointment, the Senate will not confirm you and make the appointment permanent.

In the history of the Supreme Court, two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices have received recess appointments. They were all subsequently confirmed for full terms with the exception of Chief Justice John Rutledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

This document -> http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf says there were 12 recess appointments, likely some of which were "repeat" for the same individual, and confirms that of these, only 1 (Rutledge) was not eventually confirmed.

Eisenhower was the last President to use the recess appointment power for a SCOTUS position, and the Senate promulgated a resolution expressing its opposition to the practice in the future.

That link is an excellent reference for the entire process, by the way. Repeat:

Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Process CRS-RL31989.pdf
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf

Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2004
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

[Cheburashka]

Your points on recess appointments to the Supreme Court are well taken.

One of the documents you cited made three key points, first that most recess appointments made to the Supreme Court were made in the 19th Century (when traveling to Washington was difficult and Congress was not in session for long periods of the year), the last Supreme Court recess appointments were made by Eisenhower, and that the Senate of his time passed a resolution objecting to the use of the recess appointment in that manner.

The President can make recess appointments everywhere in the judicial and executive branches, not just in the Supreme Court, and I was referring to that.

I doubt John Bolton will be confirmed now, for instance, unless the 2006 election results bring a marked change to the Senate. In fact, the recess appointment is practically an admission that the Senate at present will not confirm him.

In general, why would the Senate ratify an end run around its own prerogatives?

In any case, it still makes sense to stand and fight now, not put it off with a temporary appointment. The Democrats would love to fill the vacancy in 2009, if they should happen to win the Presidency. Why reward them for their bad behavior?