The President made four more recess appointments yesterday, elevating four people to positions for which they have waited an average of 303 days.
Some of you know I have no problem with recess appointments, irrespective of who does them. The framers inserted the provision in the Constitution knowing that the US Government must function whether the legislature is in session or not. Clearly, the framers did not see a nearly year-round legislature as we have today, but the provision is there nonetheless. The Senate should do its bit and advise and consent--or stop bitching, no matter who the President is. Or change the Constitution--which no one will do of course, because they know their party will one day again hold the Presidency.
Showing posts with label recess appointments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recess appointments. Show all posts
Friday, August 20, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Recess Appointments
Beltway Republicans are all aflutter at the President's (Constitutionally permitted) recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick as the chief of the nation's Medicare and Medicaid programs. Let's get the easy part out of the way first--Berwick is a serious lefty, a huge fan of single-payer socialized medicine and an unabashed believer in the re-distribution of wealth.
That the President chose to make a recess appointment is not notable; George Bush did plenty of it, and Democrats whined too. A pox upon both parties in this case--the Senate rules permit all sorts of chicanery when it comes to nominations and keeping them from coming up for votes. Until the Senate reforms itself, we'll have recess appointments, we'll have whining folks on the other side, and we'll have Presidents who say that they needed their person in place.
But the interesting thing in this case--brought to my attention by the redoubtable Goldwater's Ghost--is that there never was a hearing scheduled for Dr. Berwick--at any point. Seems Dems didn't want to bring the good doctor before Senate inquisitors so that he could be roundly torn apart by some Republicans looking to make health care into a mega issue for the 2010 Congressional election. So the Obama Administration's blaming of the recess appointment on recalcitrant Republicans rings hollow in the face of there having been no real evidence that Republicans were behind any delay in his confirmation.
The most transparent administration ever? Yes. They are transparent. One can see right through them.
That the President chose to make a recess appointment is not notable; George Bush did plenty of it, and Democrats whined too. A pox upon both parties in this case--the Senate rules permit all sorts of chicanery when it comes to nominations and keeping them from coming up for votes. Until the Senate reforms itself, we'll have recess appointments, we'll have whining folks on the other side, and we'll have Presidents who say that they needed their person in place.
But the interesting thing in this case--brought to my attention by the redoubtable Goldwater's Ghost--is that there never was a hearing scheduled for Dr. Berwick--at any point. Seems Dems didn't want to bring the good doctor before Senate inquisitors so that he could be roundly torn apart by some Republicans looking to make health care into a mega issue for the 2010 Congressional election. So the Obama Administration's blaming of the recess appointment on recalcitrant Republicans rings hollow in the face of there having been no real evidence that Republicans were behind any delay in his confirmation.
The most transparent administration ever? Yes. They are transparent. One can see right through them.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Obama Makes 15 Recess Appointments
President Obama took advantage of the Senate's Easter Break (and the US Constitution) and made 15 recess appointments yesterday, including one highly controversial appointment to the National Labor Relations Board. A few thoughts.
1. President Obama is fully within his rights to do this. It is a Constitutionally sanctioned act, and as such, I support it completely.
2. Elections have consequences--and when a President is elected, he gets to nominate people to serve in his administration. It is the Senate's job to treat with them. Senatorial "holds" are ridiculous; BUT, they are ALSO Constitutional, as the Constitution leaves it to the legislative bodies to regulate themselves.
3. Therefore, both the President and the Senate (at least those making the "holds") are acting Constitutionally AND predictably.
4. It will be interesting to see how the Bought and Paid For Media reacts to these appointments (recess appointments allow the person to serve through the end of the Congressional term--which for these appointments, is the first week in January of 2011). Here is a blog post that reminds us (H/T Instapundit) of how President' Bush's recess appointments were treated by the New York Times in 2006. I'm sure we can all look forward to similar criticism of President Obama from the Times in the days ahead. Go ahead, start holding your breath.....
5. Look for the BAPF media to mimic White House communication points on this matter--here is a taste of what we can expect from the horses mouths (The WH)--obviously, the White House and the WaPost would like us to FORGET about the remaining six years of the Bush Presidency where the well was further poisoned:
1. President Obama is fully within his rights to do this. It is a Constitutionally sanctioned act, and as such, I support it completely.
2. Elections have consequences--and when a President is elected, he gets to nominate people to serve in his administration. It is the Senate's job to treat with them. Senatorial "holds" are ridiculous; BUT, they are ALSO Constitutional, as the Constitution leaves it to the legislative bodies to regulate themselves.
3. Therefore, both the President and the Senate (at least those making the "holds") are acting Constitutionally AND predictably.
4. It will be interesting to see how the Bought and Paid For Media reacts to these appointments (recess appointments allow the person to serve through the end of the Congressional term--which for these appointments, is the first week in January of 2011). Here is a blog post that reminds us (H/T Instapundit) of how President' Bush's recess appointments were treated by the New York Times in 2006. I'm sure we can all look forward to similar criticism of President Obama from the Times in the days ahead. Go ahead, start holding your breath.....
5. Look for the BAPF media to mimic White House communication points on this matter--here is a taste of what we can expect from the horses mouths (The WH)--obviously, the White House and the WaPost would like us to FORGET about the remaining six years of the Bush Presidency where the well was further poisoned:
"The White House said the 15 appointees have waited an average of 214 days for a Senate confirmation vote. In all, the White House said, Obama has 217 nominees pending before the Senate, including 77 who are only awaiting a final floor vote.By comparison, the White House said, President George W. Bush had five nominees waiting for final Senate approval at this point in his presidency. Bush had used recess appointments to fill 15 posts by this time in 2002, the White House said."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
