Probably a good idea-not that he can't be trusted.

His sole reason for doing so was to block President Bush from naming controversial "recess appointments" -- a constitutional mechanism that allows the president, during congressional recesses, to fill top government posts for up to one year and avoid Senate confirmation.

HERO tag needed, SHEESH!

albanynyguy: Probably a good idea-not that he can't be trusted.

"Bush" and "Trust" are mutually exclusive, unless you're discussing the Oil Trust or the Weapons Trust, or his Trust in the Saudi Royal Family (despite 9/11).

Senate stays in session over the holidays to thwart Bush = Good.

As I said last time this happened, if Bush really wants to make recess appointments he will declare the holiday sessions a sham (e.g., void due to lack of quorum) and make the appointments anyway. The lawsuits will not be settled before the recess appointments expire at the end of 2008.

Reagan successfully used a pocket veto under similar circumstances because the item he vetoed was a restriction on expenditures for one particular fiscal year. There was a dispute over whether Congress had in fact prevented return of the bill due to adjournment. I think they left a warm body, not an elected official, in the building to receive the paperwork while Congress was not in session. The fiscal year was over when the Supreme Court got the case. Under the circumstances the lawsuit was dismissed as moot.

Smart move on their part.
But seriously, what does this say about Bush when the Senate says "We don't trust you."?

Yeah. A non-functioning bloated government at work!

I like pie.

The headline should really read-

Senate encourages Bush to break out the veto crayon more often

It's sad that it has to come to things like this, but the Bush administration has shown itself absolutely unworthy of any trust...

I hope this country can turn around in the next few years, but I'm afraid the damage has been done.

But seriously, what does this say about Bush when the Senate says "We don't trust you."?

It says "they're mostly Democrats, and can't seem to accomplish much on their own, so they're going to spend time making sure nothing else happens, either."

At this rate, they'll be filibustering their own bills in a couple of months.

randomizetimer: Yeah. A non-functioning bloated government at work!

It's called checks and balances. I know its considered a quaint and novel concept with this administration but, it's what the founding fathers wanted. You don't hate the founding fathers do you?

It's especially important when you have the batshiat insane wing of the conservative party at work starting undefined/endless wars and undermining U.S. credibility worldwide.

I have the biggest problem assigning tags. Senate is a Hero for not trusting the Obvious actions he would have attempted, and Asinine he would do so.
It is Interesting but on the same token Scary, Silly and Sick to think the senate would fall for such a Stupid trick.

PSA, GW2 is a Dumbass who is Unlikely to Caption Florida about the Boobies

Ok I am spent

The recess appointment clause is no longer necessary (the entire Senate can be assemble in less than a day if an emergency occurs, unlike the month+ it used to take), and should be amended out of the Constitution.

cirby: It says "they're mostly Democrats, and can't seem to accomplish much on their own, so they're going to spend time making sure nothing else happens, either."

At this rate, they'll be filibustering their own bills in a couple of months.

First you say the democrats are unable to do anything, then in the same sentence imply that it's their fault that the Republicans have decided to set a new record for most filibusters ever in a year. Oh, and stopping Bush from abusing recess appointments IS something.

Kool-aid, stop drinking, etc...

Ah, democracy at work.

I wonder how many of those fillibusters that the dems refused to allow debate on? I'd bet most of them.

Desterion: I wonder how many of those fillibusters that the dems refused to allow debate on? I'd bet most of them.

Considering a filibuster is an act to prevent the cessation of debate, what you are suggesting is logically impossible.

This is such a stupid, fake move on Reid's part.

It's not like Bush isn't getting every nominee he wants when the Senate IS in session.

Reid = utterly worthless at politics.

This is basically 2007 politics in a nutshell.

Reid: "Bush, we'll give you everything you want. All you have to do is dump this one guy by the wayside."
Bush: "No. I want him too. And I'm going to get him, because you're going to pussy out again."

Good. With a lying snake like Cheney and his dog Bush, whatever can be done to thwart them is in the best interests of the US of A.

To hell with the whiny republicans and their anti-American bullcrap.

We got an accurate read on their true colors when they had complete control---and those colors were not red, white and blue; they were piss yellow and shiat brown.

While I am sure CNN would tell both sides of a story (eyeroll). Why didn't they just strike a deal to give Bush the recess nominees he wants and then hold a hearing on Bradbury's appointment when they get back?

No I Hate Chevy , this isn't checks and balances, it's playing games with our government. Not that Bush hasn't been doing the same thing with his recess appointments, but you can't just write off this maneuvering around the rules, on the part of either side, as good politicking.

Checks and balances are uses of LAW to stop the power grab of another branch, not uses of rules to play games with the law.

And good politicking would consist of striking agreements with the other side, conceding one point to gain another, again not uses of rules to play games with the law.

They're both guilty as sin. That said, I might view what the democrats did this time around as a necessary evil, I haven't decided yet.

Desterion: The headline should really read-

Senate encourages Bush to break out the veto crayon more often

Why not? Nothing is going to get done with Bush obstructing anything useless that comes down the line, so why not use him as a big old reminder to the obstructionist Republican Party right when they're going to get reamed in the 2008 election? Let him go right ahead. It's much better than him doing anything he wants to do.

aharown: And good politicking would consist of striking agreements with the other side, conceding one point to gain another, again not uses of rules to play games with the law.

That's what this is all about. The Senate obviously feels that Bush will not strike an agreement, or concede any points. He will use the recess appointment trick to get this guy in, because he worries that the Senate in full session will not confirm him. Since Bush leaves in a year, and recess appointments last a year, he wouldn't have to worry about finding a compromise appointee next time around

The dems have been treated as heroes by the media for being obstructionist pricks for the last decade. Now when it comes back to bite them in the ass they're the poor victims.

Neeek: The recess appointment clause is no longer necessary (the entire Senate can be assemble in less than a day if an emergency occurs, unlike the month+ it used to take), and should be amended out of the Constitution.

I agree. It is never necessary to make an appointments like this anymore. Especially, since we already know our government lumbers in its response to crises, and even when it doesn't it does a horrible job. I'm thinking of the Patriot Act that was passed without being read by anyone in Congress, FEMA's handling of Hurricane Katrina, the subprime mortgage crisis, and Social Security which became a big issue then completely forgotten.

erik-k:
First you say the democrats are unable to do anything, then in the same sentence imply that it's their fault that the Republicans have decided to set a new record for most filibusters ever in a year.

No, I didn't imply anything. I SAID "filibuster their own bills." As in "introduce a piece of legislation then filibuster their own work becuase it's so flawed." You, on the other hand, merely tried very hard to attach your own meaning because you know how deeply useless the current crop of Dems are. Blaming their pathetic inaction on the Republican filibusters is pretty weak.

There were all sorts of good chances for them to pass good, solid bills, but they always managed to screw them up in ways that their OWN folks didn't even like. They also wasted most of the first half of the year in "investigations" (you wanna talk records, look at how many the Dems tossed out there trying to find ANYTHING they could use, and didn't), instead of actually doing something with that "100 hours" (then 100 days, now 100 weeks, probably end up "100 years").

cirby: "they're mostly Democrats, and can't seem to accomplish much on their own, so they're going to spend time making sure nothing else happens, either."

"they're barely a majority, with a president that doesn't compromise or heed the will of the American people, and a lack of votes to override his vetos."

This will all change if Democrats pick up enough seats in the next elections to start overriding vetos. Suddenly Bush will be a lot more of a lame duck than he is now.

Gosling: because you're going to pussy out again."

I'll grant you, Reid IS a giant, floppy-red vagina.

rga184: This will all change if Democrats pick up enough seats in the next elections to start overriding vetos. Suddenly Bush will be a lot more of a lame duck than he is now.

I suspect after the next election Bush won't matter very much at all.

rga184

Barely a majority is right. 49 + 2 independents. The reed they hold couldn't be slimmer. The very few DINOs + Lieberman have most of them over a barrel.

Plus the veto issue. They aren't playing the media right to put more pressure on to avoid that problem though.

Desterion: The dems have been treated as heroes by the media for being obstructionist pricks for the last decade. Now when it comes back to bite them in the ass they're the poor victims.

um, no they weren't. but thanks for playing.

besides, the dems filibustered only a few pieces of legislation, the GOP senators are filibustering virtually every piece of legislation. there is a difference.

ZAZ: As I said last time this happened, if Bush really wants to make recess appointments he will declare the holiday sessions a sham (e.g., void due to lack of quorum) and make the appointments anyway.

I believe the "session" isn't officially ended, thus qualifying as an official session, quorum or no.

Barely a majority is right. 49 + 2 independents. The reed they hold couldn't be slimmer.

Which is why they need to come up with GOOD legislation, instead of whining when their crappy bills get shot down so consistently. They could start by cutting some of the record number of earmarks they stuck into various budget bills. You remember earmarks, right? The Dems were going to stop it from happening, but instead turned around and did more earmarking than any Congress, ever... at least half again as much as the "corrupt" GOP did in any given year.

They also need to drop at least some of the HUNDREDS (literally - they had 300+ at one point) of "investigations" they opened up on the Bush Administration, most of which are duplicates, and the rest of which are going nowhere at all.

cirby: Barely a majority is right. 49 + 2 independents. The reed they hold couldn't be slimmer.

Which is why they need to come up with GOOD legislation, instead of whining when their crappy bills get shot down so consistently. They could start by cutting some of the record number of earmarks they stuck into various budget bills. You remember earmarks, right? The Dems were going to stop it from happening, but instead turned around and did more earmarking than any Congress, ever... at least half again as much as the "corrupt" GOP did in any given year.

They also need to drop at least some of the HUNDREDS (literally - they had 300+ at one point) of "investigations" they opened up on the Bush Administration, most of which are duplicates, and the rest of which are going nowhere at all.

Man, I ELECTED these people so they could do hundreds of investigations. That's what I VOTED for.

cirby: Barely a majority is right. 49 + 2 independents. The reed they hold couldn't be slimmer.

Which is why they need to come up with GOOD legislation, instead of whining when their crappy bills get shot down so consistently. They could start by cutting some of the record number of earmarks they stuck into various budget bills. You remember earmarks, right? The Dems were going to stop it from happening, but instead turned around and did more earmarking than any Congress, ever... at least half again as much as the "corrupt" GOP did in any given year.

They also need to drop at least some of the HUNDREDS (literally - they had 300+ at one point) of "investigations" they opened up on the Bush Administration, most of which are duplicates, and the rest of which are going nowhere at all.

oops. fail. The dems. had 40% less earmarks in this bill than the last repub. budget. Thanks for playing!

earmarks: 2007- 9000
2005-14,000