You may be correct in you assessment but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever made a definitive ruling on the subject. It is clear the original intent was to provide for continuity of government, not a method to circumvent the confirmation process.
Reasonable people, even when they disagree, learn to coexist and while both parties have abused the recess appointment, neither has gone to such an extreme as to challenge the confirmation requirement itself. Oboma, in his arrogance, may force this issue and if the Supreme Court is required to rule, I don't think even the liberals would support such an obvious circumvention of the checks and balances that are one of the guiding principals of our Constitution.
Good point. I hope you're right about the libs. But I have my doubts. FWIW I have a problem with recess appointments no matter who makes them because it tends to circumvent the Constitutional role of the Senate in advise and consent. In that sense it waters down the checks and balances, as you note.
Of course, like many here, I tend to take a somewhat idealistic view of the process. It would work as we desire if Senators would actually be statesmen first and put the interests of the nation ahead of party and personalities. But as we've seen, that is more often the exception than the rule. While both sides are guilty, my impression is that the 'Rats are more prone to put partisan interests ahead of principle.
And who in the GOP has the nads to force the issue by sending it to the USSC? Nobody I’ve noted or seen.
“Oboma, in his arrogance, may force this issue and if the Supreme Court is required to rule, I don’t think even the liberals would support such an obvious circumvention of the checks and balances that are one of the guiding principals of our Constitution.”