Is Bush waiting AFTER Senate Control is Decided To Begin Recess Judicial Appointments?

FREEPers everywhere ^

[aristeides]

I assume they've got to go into recess before the new Congress starts in January, if not before then. So then will be the opportunity to make recess appointments.

[Real Cynic No More]

Recess appointments EXPIRE when the next Congress goes into session. Therefore, any recess appointments done in November or December will expire on Jan 6, 2003.

Yes! This topic, and its futility, has been discussed here ad nauseum. So I'll repeat it again:

Recess appointments EXPIRE when the next Congress goes into session. Therefore, any recess appointments done in November or December will expire on Jan 6, 2003.

No judges would have the opportunity to do anything during this period if all the trial lawyers are aware that they will be kicked out of their jobs on January 6. All the lawyers have to do is get continuance of their cases. What idiots would accept a 1 1/2 month appointment under those terms?

[aristeides]

Just heard from Ventura's appointee on Fox that he is a strict constructionist (but social liberal) Has no problem with Bush conservative appointees.

Does that mean he would vote, in a special session after the election, to reorganize the Senate if that is what it would take to get the Bush nominees considered on the Senate floor? (Of course the mere threat might be enough to persuade Leahy to let those nominations go to the floor.)

[aristeides]

What idiots would accept a 1 1/2 month appointment under those terms?

Oh, I might be willing to, if I were told that accepting it meant that I would be first in line for consideration for a recess appointment on the court concerned after the new session of Congress started.

By the way, does having been a federal judge for 1 1/2 months entitle you to assume the title "Judge"? (I think a lot of people might be willing to switch jobs for 1 1/2 months if it does.)

[El Gato]

Just heard from Ventura's appointee on Fox that he is a strict constructionist (but social liberal) Has no problem with Bush conservative appointees.

The key question is how will he vote on organizational matters. If control is stripped from Little Tommy, then the judicial appoints will come to a vote, and most will be approved. With the appointment the Senate is split 49/49/02. With one of the 2 independants being the Judas from Vermont, the other this Independent Party guy just appointed. If the new guy goes with the Republicans, then it's back to a tie, with Dick Cheney holding the tie breaking vote.

[mrsmith]

I don't think "they've got to" though they traditionally take a long Christmas recess.

The significant point seems to be whether the senate is available to perform it's "advise and consent" function.
That depends to some (undetermined as far as I can find) extent on the length of the recess. The shortest recess anyone seems to have argued justified recess appointments is three days.

There are a lot of rules and arcana on this.
A pdf file on the web is "Recess Appointments of Federal Judges" by the CRS on September 5, 2001. Sorry I can't give a link but it should be easy to find using the title.

[SteveH]

I have heard it stated that any Senate business (including reorganization) can be filibustered by a single liberal senator such as Byrd or Feinstein. The tenure of the new appointee is somewhat in doubt, due to differences between state and federal law, and so it can range from a couple of days to several weeks. So it seems that on the surface there is less to hope for than one would otherwise anticipate (or desire).