Skip to comments.How House GOP can - and should - block Obama recess appointments
Posted on 05/12/2011 5:16:06 PM PDT by Nachum
Republicans shouldn't settle for issuing outraged press releases the next time President Obama makes a recess appointment. Instead, they should use their constitutional powers to block him from taking such action in the first place.
In his first two years in office, Obama made 28 recess appointments, many of which were of highly controversial nominees who likely wouldn't have been confirmed otherwise. Obama will keep making such appointments until House Republicans thwart him.
Remember that when Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked President Bush from making recess appointments by holding pro forma Senate sessions every three days during congressional breaks. The sessions lasted mere seconds, with a clerk opening the chamber and a senator immediately gaveling it closed.
Last fall, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with Reid to block recess appointments while senators were out campaigning, but for various reasons, this can't be counted on to be repeated. As long as Democrats remain in control, there are limits to what Senate Republicans can do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Could they do such a trick in the house? A few members hang around for ten second sessions?
Problem is, Republicans don’t have the GUTS!!!!
“Conversations with Republican Hill staffers in both chambers suggest House GOPers aren’t considering this strategy because it would be viewed as an extreme step that would disrupt the sense of comity between the two chambers”.
The stupid party at it again
I believe it’s the Senate that has to vote to confirm appointments. So why would it do any good to keep the House in session if the Senate calls a recess?
Exactly correct. The House has no part in the process of “advise and consent” — that’s strictly a Senate role and we don’t control the Senate . . . yet.
The GOP considered the blocking move but decided they were too gutless, old and pathetic to engage. Maybe next time!
The only way the US House can have anything to do with confirmation of appointees is budgetary. The House does not confirm appointees. The Senate does.
Someone appears to be unaware that the SENATE is the only body which can block appointments. And the SENATE is controlled by Democrats. And, since a RECESS appointment is made during a time the Congress is not sitting hence it CANNOT be blocked.
Of course, it can’t but being a dumbass never shuts some people’s mouths.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
The House could vote to remain open during the entire year, and then not vote to allow the Senate to adjourn for more than 3 days, thus blocking the Senate from being in recess long enough for the President to make an appointment.
It would violate the "comity" between the bodies, where each has pretty much allowed the other to recess when they wanted. But it could be done, if they wanted.
Given that the GOP has 47 senators, they could block recess appointments easily, by making a blanket pledge to filibuster EVERY SINGLE NOMINEE if Obama does a recess appointment for a position where he hasn't submitted a nominee, or where the Senate Majority has refused to bring the candidate up for a vote.
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that this tactic was possible, or that the Dems had used it.
"Conversations with Republican Hill staffers in both chambers suggest House GOPers aren't considering this strategy because it would be viewed as an extreme step that would disrupt the sense of comity between the two chambers."
Which is why the ball-less RINOS in Congress lose virtually every time. The Dems obviously could give a sh*t about "comity". The 'Pubbies need to use EXACTLY the same tactics as the Dems, and point out the Demos hypocrisy.
Good one. That’s why I asked the question instead of stating it as a fact. That’s a clause of the constitution I’ve never seen mentioned in discussions about appointments.
Now all we have to do is wrestle Boehner into the mud and get a real man—or girl—to take his place.