It's ridiculous to think of a judiciary filled with recess appointments, but it may come to that.
~~~
President Obama: Just. Do. It.

repeating myself here...sessions isn't just your garden variety idiot...he's a garden variety idiot that the senate republicans made RANKING MEMBER of the judicial committee...

The left blogosphere has armies of experts and accomplished professionals who continually mine data to produce reports, graphs, and other factual evidence that categorically refute Republican claims.

As these entities are not part of the establishment media, all of this wonderful information never meets the eyes of viewers who get their information from establishment media outlets.

They are not part of the 'serious' club, and such data reach the eyes of like-minded, high-information voters. As was designed and intended. Sessions et al. know this. No one with an audience will challenge them immediately nor directly with such data, thereby allowing a continuing stream of lies to go uncontested. As Cheney said, "we make our own reality."

A lot of things are ridiculous to think of, and the Republicans have been engaging in many of them, and they show roughly zero sign of planning to reform -- in fact, they seem to be trying to get more outrageous day by day.

When filibusters and holds are the new normal, and making nice has failed, and bipartisan outreach has failed, and giving away virtually the whole negotiating table before opening negotiations has resulted only in the Republicans refusing to vote for positions they themselves first put forward and claimed to support as recently as the day before --

I really don't see why recess appoinments shouldn't be used.

Republicans realized long ago that the "two sides of the story" narrative that most media subscribes to, lets them say anything without penalty. If they said the sky is green, CNN would feel obligated to report on the growing sky-color controversy. As long as media outlets feel they need to cover whatever the "other side" says, the other side can lie with impunity.

...effectively broken...

Your meaning is clear, but isn't this an oxymoron? As in, if the process is broken, it's not effective. (But the breaking has certainly had an effect.)

dj spellchecka: "he's a garden variety idiot that the senate republicans made RANKING MEMBER of the judicial committee"

Was there any flexibility in the choice, or was Sessions a lock because of seniority rules? (Which would be an argument against seniority rules.)

...makes plain that Sessions either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately trying to deceive,

What's up with the flaky use of this "either" he's mistaken "or" deceiving BS.

The fuck is lying,,, period.
Grow a pair & say it like it is.

Whenever I see this "either...or" crap I automatically know that 99.9% of the time the prick is lying ,,, unless it's an R. Then I know he/she is always lying.

Reid simply should announce that the Senate will remain in session until the nominees all get votes.

Out here in the real world we have to work unpaid overtime if our assigned work isn't finished.

If Sessions came from a state w/a dem governor I'd say someone needs to shank him thru one of his kidneys.

I'm not kidding we need to start cutting throats.

Are recess appointments to the judiciary legal?

Can a Supreme be recess appointed?

If so,,, would these appointments be permanent?

If not,,, is a temporary Supreme even possible?

"I'm not kidding we need to start cutting throats."

Liberals can't even slice bread.

Naturally, a group of 7 republican senators will join with democratic senators to form a gang of 14 to solve this issue in three two one ... never.

I'm looking to you, dems of the original gang of 14 - why on earth did you sell us out, when it's obvious we wouldn't get the same courtesy in reverse?

Why is it ridiculous to have recess appointments? Steve, you and Greg Sargent seem to have stocked up on Wimp Juice today. This is how you respond when you're in a fight. If Obama simply said "Every nominee who doesn't get a vote in 100 days (or whatever your number) will be recess-appointed", the problem would be solved.

And if I remember my Senate Rules correctly, there are even techniques that the Majority leader can use to create a recess.

Upset blog posts won't have any impact on (say) Tom Coburn. And certainly trying to reach out doesn't work. The majority party needs to stop worrying about whether the Village Media will grab for the smelling salts and start worrying about enacting their agenda.

What part of "political opponents" do Democrats not understand? Yes, Virginia, your political opponents are trying to obstruct your agenda. What are you going to do about it?

There is a reason that you never hear professional athletes complain that their opponents are trying to stop them from scoring. Can you imagine if Joe Girardi complained that opposing pitchers were throwing curveballs? Or if Bill Belichick complained that the New York Jets were trying to intercept Tom Brady's passes.

Obama has 59 votes in the Senate and can't get more than 43 percent of his nominees confirmed? EPIC FUCKING FAIL OBAMA.

Hmmm. Looking at CAP's methodology, this is not quite as clear a picture as it seems.

"All percentages reflect the total percent of nominees confirmed during an entire presidency, and do not include Supreme Court nominees, unless otherwise noted."

The apples-to-apples comparison would be to compare nominations at this point in a President's first term. Millhiser only does this for Bush 43 (52% confirmed at this point in his prsidency, nine points higher than Obama's 42.8).

There seems like a great deal of procedural roadblocking in this Congress, but this doesn't look like the data to prove it.

Sessions either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately trying to deceive

Steve, stop being so goddamned wishy-washy. The asshole is lying. Period.

Obama has 59 votes in the Senate and can't get more than 43 percent of his nominees confirmed? EPIC FUCKING FAIL OBAMA.

He needs 60 votes to overcome filibusters, genius. He doesn't have them, because of the GOP's obstructionism. Try paying attention before posting comments that reveal how clueless you are.

"I'm looking to you, dems of the original gang of 14 - why on earth did you sell us out, when it's obvious we wouldn't get the same courtesy in reverse?"

Because they got paid. Now send in the money for the next Dem campaign.

Thank you, Screamin' Demon, for stating the obvious.

The vast majority of the time, Obama is clearly incapable of exerting the slightest bit of political leverage in order to get merely 1 of 41 GOP Senators to allow an up or down vote.

I am not going to bother to list the dozens upon dozens of ways that a President who controls both houses of Congress should be able to put the screws to individual Senators. Suffice it to say that if they are not readily apparent to you then you probably shouldn't be weighing in on this subject. And suffice it to say that any President who cannot employ a variety of those tactics, as needed, is doomed to EPIC FAIL.

Because they got paid. Now send in the money for the next Dem campaign.

Exactly. And it is high time that people stop asking why the Democratic Scorpions keep acting in their natures and start asking why the Democratic Frogs keep letting the Scorpions climb on their backs.

"which makes plain that Sessions either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately trying to deceive,"----

Come on this is Jeff Sessions we're talking about. I would suggest the explanation is that Jeff can't count or tell time. Clearly he thinks he's living in Alabama in 1930.

I'm curious and cant' watch the video (work).

Did anyone take the floor after him and call him out on his bullshit? Did any Dem Senators know what he was saying was bullshit?

Dems have to refute this immediately, on the Senate floor. Otherwise, the MSM puts it out there as a credible position.

Why didn't Harry Reid reset the rules at the beginning of the 111th Congress? It would have been so easy then, and so very effective. Not setting the rules, to avoid filibuster obstructionism, when it was possible, was a huge mistake.

@ grumpy "The minority party member of a committee with the most seniority is designated the ranking minority member of the committee."

kinda wrecks my joke but helps with yours..."(Which would be an argument against seniority rules.)"

With "deliberately trying to deceive" you mean "lying". Why so coy?

Please, President Obama, just do it. Appoint them all. The party of NO is dedicated to seeing you and the country fail. So do an end run and perhaps next January, the broken senate will be repaired.

@cwolf: Thank you so much for saying it like it is. Quit saying stuff like "deliberately deceiving" because you are trying to be nice. Steve, is that what journalists are supposed to do? Is calling someone a liar out of the question? Say he is deliberately LYING. People understand that much better and it doesn't dumb down your point.

Could all non-teenage posters please cease and desist the use of "epic" as a general purpose superlative and use of "fail" instead of "failure"? And particularly the use of both of these words together.

Thankyou.

Yes, recess appointments would be permitted. Like other recess appointments, they would expire at the end of the Congressional session.

Although that may work out for agency and administrative appointments, because Obama can appoint someone already working in the Agency or administration to fill a particular post, it won't work very well for federal judicial appointments. The reason is that the appointees are not already working for the administration, or for the judiciary. Generally, judicial nominees are highly qualified lawyers, or state court judges. These people already have highly regarded, well-paying careers (either as partners at good firms, or as prosecutors, or judges); they are not likely to leave their careers for a 2-year post. The only way to convince them to take such a short term appointment is that they will "likely" be confirmed with a second nomination in a new Congress. And that's not any more likely, now, is it?

Besides, "short term recess appointments" to the judiciary undermine the independence of the federal judiciary. The recess appointments will be keenly aware of the political implications of each of their cases and decisions, especially knowing that their decisions will be used against them in future confirmation hearings. That is not healthy for parties before the court, nor is it healthy for the judiciary in general.

Agree with the commenters above who are sick of Steve pussy-footing around. Grow a pair and call a liar a liar. In that vein, Blue Girl's headline was a blast of fresh air: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is an intentional, deliberate ***LIAR***

Agree with the all commenter above but "I'm not kidding we need to start cutting throats."

Thank you.