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.
Thanks for your reply. I agree that recess appointments are not necessary in these times and, when used, actually do more damage to the system than they are worth. Whether it is a John Bolton or this current Cordray, no person is indispensable.
While democrats are generally more aggressive in pursuing their agenda, their leadership is usually mature enough to avoid putting the opposition in an untenable position. Neither side in the Senate wants a constitutional confrontation over recess appointments because they both have more to lose than to gain. Oboma, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to recognize any limits or to care about the long term consequences.
Regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, the Supreme Court is the Establishment and their existence is dependent on upholding the system. While they would not want to be involved in this, if the case is brought to them, they would likely deal with it like an earlier court did with United States v. Nixon.