Funny thing happened to Bush's SCOTUS philosophy on his way to recess appoint Bolton to the UN.
He forgot that he has promised to appoint judges and justices in the mode of Scalia and Thomas.
Scalia and Thomas believe in the original intent argument for interpreting the US Constitution.
What I wonder was the original intent of the power for a recess appointment?
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Not being a constitutional scholar I can only rely on the words that I read…THE POWER TO FILL UP ALL VACANCIES THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE…
I can't imagine either Scalia or Thomas interpreting that to mean anything other than to fill a vacancy in an emergency.
Now some might argue that Clinton also used the recess appointment to circumvent the will of the Senate. I agree. However Clinton never stated a judicial philosophy based on original intent.
Bush has either changed his philosophy, flip flopper; or he has made a craven political decision and lost the ability to portray himself as someone who is guided by a core belief system. Unless that belief system is win at any cost…