To me this seemed a little contrary to the thinking. I mean, if you were afraid of a judge’s decision, or had reluctance about his ability to judge, why appoint them in the first place. Seems to me that a recess appointment could be just the opposite – it could give a judge, through well-thought out decisions, the chance to prove the DemocRats wrong and diffuse any controversy.
The democrats are generally wrong, but even public support for a nomination will not overcome the need for a 60-40 majority to make the Senate filibuster-proof. If a recess appointment gives a judge the opportunity to show that he is against: late-term abortions, quotas disguised as affirmative action, or gun-grabbers who don't give a hoot about The Second Amendment, the dem's power base will come out in force against their permanent approval.