The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (5 comments)

  1. SeattleSam

    I’m sure the President thought, “What do I have to lose by trying?” Unlike President Bush, he doesn’t have to worry about the media calling him the “imperial president”.
    And I don’t see what the downside is for “future presidents (who) will not have the option to make recess appointments other than when the Senate has finished its business and adjourned in any year.” Isn’t that what the Constitution says?

  2. Maybe the rule should be if the Senate fails to act in 60 days, the appointment will take effect on the 61st day and we won’t have to play this silly game – not just this POTUS but man previous ones also.

    What we have here is obstruction for obstruction sake and it begets “end-around” maneuvers.

    1. Jon Murphy

      Maybe the rule should be changed to that. Maybe it will be, one day. But if the court ruling stands, then it would take a Constitutional amendment for such a thing to happen.

    2. This is a novel idea but perhaps it is time that the Courts, Congress, and the Executive began to respect the Constitution as written.

  3. Ah those pesky facts…not to worry the media will be certain to shine its unbiased light on this…no wait..

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content