RSS
Using PayPal
Recess Appointment? Maybe. . .But See How Crippling That Would Be
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Monday, Jun 20 2005, 11:41AM
There is talk of a recess appointment for John Bolton bubbling everywhere which is the first serious admission by the main stream media that efforts to oppose Bolton have the edge.
The media for more than two months has constantly parroted the line that Bolton was still likely to be confirmed. That mantra has disappeared from coverage.
Here is a piece I wrote on what happens if Bolton does receive a recess appointment.
And this excerpt from a Congressional Research Service document is worth reading again:
How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President May Make a Recess Appointment?The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter recesses have become more commonplace, Attorneys General and Offices of Legal Counsel have offered differing views on this issue. Most recently, in 1993, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days.
Appointments made during short recesses (less than 30 days), however, have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve a political cost for the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances where Senators perceive that the President is using the recess appointment process to circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who is opposed in the Senate. Although President Theodore Roosevelt once made recess appointments during an intersession recess of less than one day, the shortest length of a recess during which appointments have been made during the past 20 years was 10 days.
More shortly on the talking points those opposing Bolton and cloture on his nomination are distributing. . .
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Back to Bolton, 6 p.m.» Next Article - Market Betting Against Bolton Confirmation
I'm unclear as to how a recess appointment would be "crippling" for Bush. He would have his guy in the UN, which is really all he wants. He would not have had to release the documents (which as we've all surmised, must contain something very damaging.) As I see it, it's a winning situation for Bush.
Does it matter at that point whether the Senate backs Bolton or not, once he gets to the UN?
Strategy question,
Even if Bush does recess appointment, does it make sense strategically and legally to continue demand Bolton documents?
Continuing the document demand makes sense since still a matter of checks and balances and still deals with fitness of the appointment.
This may be unusual but it makes sense to me to continue to demand the docs.
"UN Nominee Gets to UN - American (President's) Independence Assured"
If Bolton does get a recess appointment over the break, we should not let the press go unaware of the unfortunate connection of the President making this appointment to the United Nations during the American independence holiday. You know the right will eat it up, but I'm sure we can make a more substantive connection between policy and symbolism.
As a recess appointee, Bolton would begin his assignment as a lame duck with his appointment ending with the end of the next session of Congress (i.e. January, 2007), and having once circumvented the confirmation process he is not likely to have a favorable confirmation a second time around unless he acts considerably against the expectations that originally denied him approval. At this point, I think a recess appointment of a year and a half might be preferable to a longer appointment to the NSC staff, which might be the only alternative this administration has to protect Bolton in order to protect its support from the extreme conservative wing of the party.
cross posted from TPM cafe (where John Marshall suggested that a recess appointment represented a defeat for Bush)
**************
The idea that a recess appointment for Bolton represents a "defeat" for Bush is misleading. Bush has never shown any respect for "process" -- the "ends" are all that he cares about. If the truth won't carry the day, and lies will, then lies are what we will hear---and Bush will consider the results a victory. If he can't get a John Bolton through the US Senate, and he can appoint him anyway, then that's what he'll do, and he'll consider it a victory.
What's most important to Bush is that he be seen as powerful -- so expect a whole lot of spin about Democratic obstruction, and how Bush "powered" his way through that obstruction by the recess appointment of John Bolton, proving once again what a "strong and effective" leader he is.
The fact that it represents a defeat for Bush will be clouded by the "he said/she said" nature of the corporate media, with every person who suggests that Bush has suffered a political defeat being paired with someone who will trash the Democratic Party --- and since the person saying that Bush suffered a defeat will be an "analyst" while the other person will be there solely to trash the Democrats and make Bush look good means that there will be no one around to defend the Democratic party position.....
I think it would be difficult for Bolton to speak with any authority. Member nations would know that he'd have a hard time getting any support from Congress. There are a lot of questions about his support from Secretary Rice already.
Anyone see the Washington Post article on life at the State Department without Bolton? Might give us an idea what would happen with him in place.
Washington Post
"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."
I sorta wish that meant what it said. "Vacancies that may happen during the Recess" does not mean, to me, pre-existing vacancies that continue to exist during Senate recess.
A vacancy that occurs while the Senate is in recess is one thing, this is obviously something else.
There are two levels of reforms. Bushco is interested in oil for food scandal, financials, anti-Annan etc, the usual right wing, anti-UN stuff. The second, far-reaching set of reforms consists of: Security council expansion, new permanent members, admin reforms for all UNN agencies, closer cooperation between UN, WB and IMF and so on. Laura Rozen at warandpiece.com says WH is not really interested in the second set of reforms; they just want to run out their clock. This fits well with Bolton, since he can't do the second level of reforms; it entails that he talk to people and compromise. All Cheney wants to do is do some muckraking and do some scandals at UN. So Bolton's recess appointment wouldn't take away anything from that agenda.
So I fully expect a recess appt and Bolton will only work on scandal stuff, which he loves to do.
He will even get a book and movie deal after his service.
Even Mowbray at ConfirmBolton is talking Recess Appt. (The mood over there seems very subdued.) While it will be a political victory for Democrats and Bolton opponents even if Bush recess appoints him, it will severely damage the country's broader diplomatic needs in the long run having such a farcical figure representing us, and Bolton won't have any heft at the UN if he gets there.
Withdraw!
All Cheney wants to do is do some muckraking and do some scandals at UN. So Bolton's recess appointment wouldn't take away anything from that agenda.
Well, that is what I would classify as a "'win" for Bush -- a loss for the country and the world, maybe, but an unqualified win for Bush.
I'm surprised he didn't go the "recess appointment" route from the get-go. Seems there will be very little political price to pay.
In fact, for the republicans as a whole, its a win-win. They get their guy in there, and they didn't have to have their own names attached to the appointment with a vote.
Bush operating manual: Barely achieve political goals through weilding of minimal political capital. Then run like hell.
Sell a recess appointment as a victory if you wish, but Bolton's task is to lead US, ah, toward "some crisis that creates another rally-round-the president effect."
And the Republicans get to keep using INTELLIGENCE RESOURCES FOR POLITICAL AND INDIVIDUAL GAIN.
(Usec anyone?)
Recess Appointment?
Bring it on!
I relish the idea of refighting this battle next summer going into the 2006 mid-term elections.
By that time, more background on Bolton will have leaked and we will have had a full-year of his Tourrettes-like inability to conduct himself in a civil manner on one of the world's most prominent stage.
Please! Please! Please!
Bypass the Senate's mandate to Advise and Consent and make a recess appointment of John Bolton.
I can't wait....
A recess appointment is a political defeat for Bush, period. I would take this talk with a grain of salt. Bush does not sound particularly committed to Bolton at this point.
Steve,
I have a suggestion, assuming Bolton's nomination is withdrawn or in the case of a recess appointment.
Why not turn your guns towards getting the Senate Intelligence Committee to ask for the NSA intercepts? The issue is still legitimate, and should not be dropped. What Bolton did was very impoper, worthy of a Senate investigation.
If forces opposing Bolton have enough votes to deny cloture, could it be that they have enough votes to finish him off in an up-and-down vote?
To deny cloture you need only 41 votes.
To vote him down, you need 51.
If Bolton opponents are sure thay have 51 votes,
vote for cloture and vote him down on up-or-down.
This move will block the recess appt. Looks good on paper/screen, but difficult to execute.
So, in the end Bolton might(?) get a recess appointment? Kinda makes the whole debate,cloture, document denial look a political pony show to distract the public from more important issues.
A recess appointment of John Bolton is the stuff dreams are made of. It would get him out of his current job, where he's supposed to be the guy in charge of preventing the spread of WMDs...he hasn't been doing such a great job there. Further, a recess appointment is only good for one year. Then the Senate would once again have to decide on whether or not to confirm Bolton. This would cause John Bolton to face far, far greater scrutiny than any previous UN Ambassador. Bolton has compiled a record of bullying, yelling, harassment, threatening, and corporate stooge-ism second to none in the past. He would face a difficult confirmation vote NOW. The vote he would face in a year would be far worse, and Democrats could tie John Bolton around the necks of every Republican Senator who voted to confirm him.
Reader Comments (22) - post a comment