On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > But, using that logic, what is to stop him from giving anyone a position?
That is a very serious issue, indeed, which is why when Democrats held the Senate under Bush they would do things like not technically go into recess so that Bush couldn't do recess appointments. > I think the idea of confirming candidates for certain posts is a good > thing, but, like most everything in our political system, it has > become a tool of retaliation and nopt really doing what it was meant > to do. And for that, I blame both parties as both parties are guilty > of it. The weird thing about the rules of the Senate is that they are so arbitrary. They aren't laid out in the Constitution, they aren't laid out in a normal legal statute. They are just rules that are adopted at the beginning of a session and if they don't adopt a new set of rules, it is deemed that the rules from the prior session are still in effect. So they make themselves dysfunctional and plodding and ineffectual through their own damn rules. That's why there is a growing movement for filibuster reform. At least with recess appointments, they are of a limited duration. As specified in the Constitution, recess appointments have to be confirmed by the end of the following Congressional session or the job becomes vacant again. So today's appointment has to be confirmed by the time that Congress adjourns in 2011 or else he's out of a job. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322640 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
