Political Animal
Blog
The 4th of July holiday is quickly approaching, and members of Congress will be heading home. The House has already shut down for the week.
There will not, however, be a congressional recess.
President Barack Obama won’t be able to make any recess appointments next week because GOP maneuvering has blocked the Senate from adjourning over the Fourth of July break.
Under the Constitution, each house of Congress must approve of the other adjourning for more than three days at a time. The House, controlled by Republicans, left town last week without approving an adjournment resolution for the Senate’s holiday recess next week. That means the Senate will have to convene a series of “pro forma” sessions, which are lightning-quick, gavel-in, gavel-out sessions so the chamber can say it’s technically not in adjournment.
With a backlog of nominations and fearful that Obama will name Elizabeth Warren to head a new consumer agency, Republicans are in no mood to give Obama an opportunity to make recess appointments, and Senate Republicans employed a similar maneuver during the Memorial Day break.
It wasn’t unusual for Senate Democrats to convene pro-forma sessions in the final two years of the Bush presidency, but Dems were in the majority at the time.
Also note, congressional Republicans are determined to prevent President Obama from being able to exercise this power for the indefinite future, regardless of the seriousness of the vacancies or the extent of the Senate GOP’s obstructionism.
The White House has been under a fair amount of pressure from the left lately to use the recess to make key appointments. It’s unclear whether the West Wing is inclined to use the president’s prerogative or not, but so long as these Republican tactics continue, it’s a moot point — Obama can’t make recess appointments if there’s no recess.
Update: Jonathan Bernstein argues that Dems may have some legal options, albeit unpredictable ones, for circumventing the GOP’s tactics. It’s worth checking out.
Facebook
Twitter
T2 on June 29, 2011 9:29 AM:
sorry to be off-thread, but the story on NBC today is too precious:
While Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.
Now, the fact that Bachmann is directly benefitting from money she actively campaigns against is curious enough, but I didn't realize her hubby ran a mental clinic. That is convenient.
Speed on June 29, 2011 9:31 AM:
The rules of the Senate and House are so absurd, idiotic and arcane. I swear Mervyn Peake must have been thinking of the US Congress when he wrote his Gormenghast books.
c u n d gulag on June 29, 2011 9:34 AM:
So, even when there's a break, these MFer's won't give us a break!
DAY on June 29, 2011 9:35 AM:
"congressional Republicans are determined to prevent President Obama from being able to exercise this power for the indefinite future, "
I think I remember hearing something along the lines of "Elections have consequences"
How many Dems- in their perpetual snit- are going to stay home next November?
patrick on June 29, 2011 9:40 AM:
It seems the senate has not been fulfilling its duty of advise and consent. I would be tempted, if I were Obama, to have publicly set a time limit. If not given an up or down vote, to go ahead and appoint on the theory that silence is consent. With a different supreme court I would have done it by now. But Obama needs to challenge this activity somehow. It is particularly maddening that they did not re-write the senate rules after the last election. It makes on think that form over content is what counts for the democrats too. There is a country to run and one side seems to want to destroy it and the other side doesn't have what it takes to run it.
Steve P on June 29, 2011 9:48 AM:
Once offered the use of a primitive form of poison gas to use against the French, the Duke of Wellington declined, saying "Two can play at that game."
Which the Republicans know well. This, and similar acts of brinkmanship, may point out an underlying desperation at the knowledge that they must grasp as much as they can NOW, because demographics are going to turn them into the Whig party. Add to the mix the likes of the Kochs, well aware that the evening is coming to an end, and you start to think that part of the Dem's task will be to manage the collapse of the GOP--in much the same way that the collapse of the USSR had to be managed by the West.
Though it's hard to accord them that much dignity. It's more like limiting the damage done by a rabid dog.
matt on June 29, 2011 9:51 AM:
It sure seems that the Republicans control both houses of Congress, doesn't it?
Add in the Supreme court and the Dems don't have a chance.
Goldilocks on June 29, 2011 9:52 AM:
Politico's choice of words - Republicans are in no mood to give Obama an opportunity to make recess appointments - irks. It suggests Mr Obama is a 'naughty boy' in danger of doing something nefarious.
Old School on June 29, 2011 9:55 AM:
Out of curiousity, if the Senate will not be in recess, can Obama nominees be approved on a 1-0 vote if someone is staying in town for the week?
August J. Pollak on June 29, 2011 9:56 AM:
That means the Senate will have to convene a series of “pro forma” sessions, which are lightning-quick, gavel-in, gavel-out sessions so the chamber can say it’s technically not in adjournment.
This is clearly just a navel-gaving exercise, since naturally Reid wouldn't dream of even contemplating the possibly of having the balls to do this, but what if they just.... don't?
Josef K on June 29, 2011 9:58 AM:
In the 235 years of our independence, has our government ever been this dysfunctional and insane?
August J. Pollak on June 29, 2011 9:59 AM:
Out of curiousity, if the Senate will not be in recess, can Obama nominees be approved on a 1-0 vote if someone is staying in town for the week?
Sadly, that one I do know. The likely result would be that there would be a requirement for quorum. Even if it was then made, Republicans could signal they will filibuster, and per Senate rules it's not "41 Senators have to be there to hold the filibuster;" it's "60 Senators have to be there to break it."
foosion on June 29, 2011 10:05 AM:
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the president the power to adjourn the House and the Senate. Obama could force the Senate to adjourn and then make a recess appointment, if he so desired.
wasd on June 29, 2011 10:06 AM:
paul on June 29, 2011 10:39 AM:
foosion has a point: if the senate passed an adjournment agreement (and no, I don't think those can be filibustered) and the house didn't, Obama could use his Article II power to adjourn both of them, and call them back into session at a time entirely of his choosing.
Which is kinda tempting, but is probably why the senate leadership isn't willing to go that route.
flounder on June 29, 2011 10:41 AM:
Sorry, but this is a lie. The president has a constitutional power to adjourn Congress, he could send these clowns home and appoint whomever he wants. Given the unpopularity of Congress, and the common perception that they aren't doing anything, I think this would be a great fight to pick with Congress.
Article II, Section 3 (dealing with presidential powers):
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
ex-curm on June 29, 2011 10:53 AM:
Steve needs to offer a correction and admit that Obama could use his constitutionally given power here, but he won't because he thinks that would not look bipartisan.
bay of arizona on June 29, 2011 11:41 AM:
This is true for many things in this Administration, and I doubt Steve will offer any correction.
bay of arizona on June 29, 2011 11:47 AM:
I didn't notice the link to Bernstein, so I should not have insulted Steve.
But I think under the circumstances Dems should be willing to try anything, even if unconventional, to get around Republican obstructionism. Instead, they concede n advance, like on the debt ceiling - there are unconventional options there as well.
Schtick on June 29, 2011 11:56 AM:
The federal government is the reason that New York State doesn't have the most dysfunctional government. We are only number two.
crapcha....fuse youndiso....oh no!
TCinLA on June 29, 2011 12:42 PM:
Bernstein says: The other thing that Obama and the Democrats could do is to work on the underlying problem of Senate obstruction by threatening to eliminate supermajority requirements for executive branch appointments.
Getting Hairless Harry Reid to do something like this, and getting a majority of the Democratic version of the horses asses who get to be Senators is right up there with getting the sun to start rising in the West. One thing
Daniel Kim on June 29, 2011 12:44 PM:
So, they won't close for Independence Day? Why do the Republicans hate America?
fostert on June 29, 2011 5:36 PM:
The solution is obvious. If the Senate is in session, they can hold votes with only Democrats and ram through whoever they want. I bet they can get at least a dozen judges through before the Republicans can even show up to vote. Remember, it only takes 50 for a quorum. I'd like to see the Democrats do a secret July 4 session without telling the Republicans.