Obama on Firm Legal Ground With Recess Appointment, Experts Say

I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome of a legal challenge. The Supreme Court has a duty to bow to the jealous perogatives of the seperate branches of our government. The Senate is expected to confirm a president's nominees. And recess appoinments can only be made in an actual recess of the Senate.

Further, the House didn't consent to adjournment--much less, a recess of the Senate. Pro forma sessions are still considered working sessions. And plenty of substantive recent legislation has been passed and business conducted--pro forma.

Further, the president isn't empowered to declare the Senate in recess--only the Senate can do that--in consultation with the House. And since pro forma sessions were a Democrat invention devised soley to thwart George Bush's ability to recess appoint his nominees--the Dems are hoisted by their own petards.

But by all means, bring it on. I challenge the Supremes to constitutionally allow presidents to set--much less define--the day-to-day schedule of proper Senate business--simply to bypass the advice and consent of the Senate requirements for nominees.

That would be like jimmying the Supreme Court docket by presidential fiat. Or allowing Obama to select the committee chairmen in the House.

It just isn't done under our system of checks and balances. Nor should it be. The seperation of powers exists for a sound reason--to prevent tyrannical overreach of selfserving politicians--very much like Obama--or worse.

LLeone of FL 4:21PM January 15, 2012