February 22, 2004
Bush Needs To Take A Recess From Recess Appointments
President Bush made yet another recess appointment Friday, this time placing Alabama AG William H. Pryor, Jr.—a darling of the religious right and ultra-conservatives everywhere, on the U.S. Of Appeals For the 11th Circuit. Pryor, one of six ultra-conservative judicial appellate nominees being blocked by the U.S. Senate, will serve until 2005.
So, what’s up with Bush’s penchant for bypassing the Senate and securing his most controversial nominees get their posts through recess appointments? That’s a good question.
Given that this is an election year, one would think Bush would shy away from such controversial tactics, considering he will need as much goodwill as possible from independent and liberal-leaning voters in order to actually secure election. Obviously, Pryor's appointment will make him even less attractive to pro-choice voters and those who firmly believe in separation of church and state. So, such an appointment won't go too far in securing him many swing voters, except perhaps those residing within the state of Alabama.
Democratic pollster Geffrey D. Garin told the Washington Post Bush is finding that:
Bush could, however, be trying to solidify his appeal among religious-righters and ultra-conservatives within his own party.
The Post notes:
Bush's recess appointment was hailed by conservatives at a time when the right wing of his party has complained to the White House about issues including record federal spending and a delay in an endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Of course, given Bush's record, it is hard to fathom that even the most "ultra" of the ultra-right wingers and ultra-conservatives within his party would defect and vote against him.
Then again, Bush could simply be working to make judicial appointments a hallmark of his re-election campaign:
Republican officials described Bush's action as a signal that he intends to make judicial choices a key issue in his reelection race, as well as another example of his determination to expand executive power at the expense of the legislative branch, The Washington Post noted.
But, even Bush should know that the average voter doesn't vote for President based on who he will appoint to the bench. Sure, party activists and folks who keep an eye on special agendas like abortion will pay attention to that. The average voter, however, wants to know what the President will do to shore up the economy, prevent us from further getting bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq, and what the President will do to restore some form of confidence in corporate America.
The average voter probably won't vote for a candidate based on who he'll appoint to the bench. The average voter may, however, be less inclined to vote for a candidate who usurps constitutional process and takes advantage of a constitutional provision to put people on the bench who don't reflect the values of average Americans.
As for recess appointments generally, more than 300 judicial recess appointments have been made since 1789, the first year such was permissible. (This averages out to less than ten per president.)
In many cases, recess appointments have been used to good measure. In fact, four of the first five African American appellate judges got their positions through recess appointments. And, as noted in 2000, many presidents have used their power to make recess appointments to add diversity to courts by appointing qualified minority candidates to judicial office.
This isn't the case with Pryor. His appointment does little for the idea of diversity, and given the proliferation of conservative non-minority judges in the South, Bush could have picked a less controversial, though still conservative, nominee and probably secured that person a more legitimate bench appointment given that the Senate has confirmed 171 of Bush's less controversial nominees.
The bottom line is that Bush needs to take a recess from making recess appointments. Even if he is making reshaping the judiciary a cornerstone of his campaign, he should not do so at the expense of the rights of the American people.
In fact, from a political standpoint, wouldn't it be better ammunition for his stump speeches to be able to say that his nominees have been blocked rather than for him to have to admit that he misused a constitutional provision to place a nominee on the bench that the Senate didn't see fit to hold office?
You completely bypass the real issue in the judicial appointment controversy in the senate: democrats have engaged in an unconstitutional block on all the appointments that bush has attempted by using the filibuster rule. The problem is that while the intention was that judicial appointments would have to be reviewed by the senate, but just by a simple majority; the democrats have used the rule that you need 60 votes to quiet a filibuster.
Posted by: Miguel at February 22, 2004 07:49 AMMiguel, your statement is factually incorrect. Nearly all of the judicial appoints, save a handful, were confirmed. It is Bush who courts unconstitutionality by bypassing the Senate, elected officials who represent our states.
Also, The constitution did not explicitly outlaw filibustering, and does protect free speech. Both the act of filibustering and the content of such a speech can be regarded as protected. the necessity for a two-thirds majority against the continued filibustering ensures that if the majority is great enough, the filibustering can be put an end, and if it’s not sufficient, you don’t have a bare majority pre-empting the political interest of a bare minority that the people have seen fit to elect
The Republicans have unfortunately wielded their majorities, and their control of the White House like a hammer, trying to smash those who dissent from their agenda, instead of consensus building, and legislative compromise. This is not a country where people can impose themselves on other without an opposing response, and as long as Bush seeks to appoint the most extreme political candidates to office, he will find Democrats demonstrating their loyalty to their constituents, as mandated by the voter’s choice, by opposing such appointments
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2004 10:10 AM“You completely bypass the real issue in the judicial appointment controversy in the senate: democrats have engaged in an unconstitutional block on all the appointments that bush has attempted by using the filibuster rule.”
Didn’t read the article, huh? Stephen’s reponse is perfect.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at February 22, 2004 12:13 PM…usurps constitutional process and takes advantage of a constitutional provision to put people on the bench who don’t reflect the values of average Americans.…The constitution did not explicitly outlaw filibustering,
What a minute. At best your argument misses pertinant facts and at worst is disengenous. If the constitution does not outlaw filibustering, it certainly doesn’t outlaw recess appointments. It cannot be said to be ‘usurping constitutional process’ if it is a provision of the constitution and perfectly legal for the President to do. Both actions are on equal ground.
Recess appointment are temporary and will eventually have to be approved by the senate.
Secondly, the baseless assertion that somehow recess appointments are only good if they are ‘adding diversity’ is merely your opinion and has nothing to do with the constitution or whether any individual appointment is ‘right’.
In my opinion appointing conservative judges is adding to the diversity of the court, in that the majority of judges serving on the bench now are of liberal persuasion.
…In many cases, recess appointments have been used to good measure. …used their power to make recess appointments to add diversity to courts by appointing qualified minority candidates to judicial office.
…This isn’t the case with Pryor. His appointment does little for the idea of diversity,
In fact it is my view that the democrats have been ‘trying to smash those who dissent from their agenda, instead of consensus building, and legislative compromise’ and they are perfectly within their bounds to do so.
Moreover, President Bush has merely been ‘demonstrating his loyalty to his constituents, as mandated by the voter’s choice, by making such appointments’.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at February 22, 2004 01:54 PMEric, I said it courts unconstitutionality. In other words, it gets close enough to whisper sweet nothings in its ear, but not so close that their must be satisfaction on the poor dear’s honor.
As for the willingness to hammer on Republican policies, I suppose it’s there in the Democratic party, but as the Democrats are outnumbered in both houses, it’s a moot point, and the Republicans are successfully ramming policies and candidates down Democrat throats. The democrats are countering with what they have at hand. Of course things wouldn’t be this vicious if people were trying to build consensus and actually hold discussions, but that makes necessary a kind of mutual disarmament.
I’ll lay down my arms if you do.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2004 10:41 PMKeen assessment Vince, as Bush should be moving to center right now, instead of codifying those restless neo-Cons.
But, for Karl Rove’s sake, I hope they’ve not forgotten the Soccer Moms!
Dems could easily make Pryor’s intolerant and racially questionable pronouncements the basis for a retort to the ‘activist’ judge charge.
Coupled with growing homophobic rantings on Gay Marriage and the ‘Moms’ start fleeing for more compassionate company!
Stephen,
I’ll lay down my arms if you do.
I think you have the liberal program backwards. Jimmy Carter’s advice is that the U.S. should set the example and disarm first… maybe the democrats should follow his advice domestically.
The former United States president Jimmy Carter says the US, which has taken the lead in urging such countries as Iraq and North Korea to destroy their weapons of mass destruction, should also disarm.Posted by: Eric Simonson at February 23, 2004 04:45 PM“One of the things that the United States Government has not done is to try to comply with and enforce international efforts targeted to prohibit the arsenals of biological weapons that we ourselves have,” Mr Carter told CNN.
“The major powers need to set an example,” Mr Carter said, as the US confronts Iraq over its possession of such banned weapons.
SMH.com
