Yesterday, I posted about Bush's "emergency" appointment of Bolton to be US Ambassador to the UN. Now, a recess appointment in this case is really fishy, and here's why.
A recess appointment should only be used for an emergency, let's say somebody dies or quits suddenly while Congress is in recess. Then, having a relevant post such as this one left vacant for almost two months until Congress comes back would be counterproductive, dangerous, or what have it. But in this case, the previous Ambassador quit in January, and this appointment goes back to March, so there really is no way that Bush can say, "This is an emergency and I have to appoint somebody now."
I believe the law should be changed to say that a recess appointment can only be used for emergencies, and the vacancy has to occur during the recess period. If the vacancy occurred 7 months prior, as in this case, than it's NOT an emergency, it's just that the President wants to appoint someone that the Senate doesn't agree with.
Furthermore, I think the law should also be changed to limit the appointment not to the current session of Congress, but to the duration of the recess. If that were the case, then in September Bolton's nomination would come up again.
These two changes would enforce checks and balances against abuse of power. In this case, for example, Bush couldn't have appointed Bolton now because the vacancy didn't occur during the recess, and if it did, whoever he appointed would have to be confirmed as soon as Congress comes back from recess.
Why on Earth should we endure someone at the UN or anywhere else who is appointed out of a whim, instead of following the procedures put in place for all high level officials?
These two simple changes would discourage abuse of power on the part of the President, which is exactly what Bush did in this case.
2 comments:
I like the idea that the vacancy has to occur during the recess. I don't know if I agree about having the appointment last only the duration of the recess. Such a short tenure would almost make the person irrelevant in the position.
As a diplomat, no foreign government would initiate discussions with an ambassador who is likely to be out of a job in a month or two. A judge wouldn't want to begin hearing a lengthy case if he were likely to lose his appointment in a matter of weeks.
That said, I do think that the term of someone appointed during a recess should be restricted to less that what is is currently.
I just wonder if it was a mistake on the part of the democrats to continue the filibuster. Knowing Bush's contempt for people that disagree with him, it's obvious he would have used a recess appointment for Bolton. (He was obviously anxious -- he did it the first day) Maybe they should have forced every senator to go on record either approving or disapproving. The end result was going to be the same -- he'll be our ambassador to the UN.
Yes, such a short appointment would certainly limit the amount of power this person has, but since it's an emergency appointment, his role would likely just entail keeping the office going until his appointment is finalized.
At the same time, besides discouraging the President from abusing his own powers in appointing people for political office, it would also discourage candidates who clearly know that they are controversial from even seeking or accepting the position. A wise person wouldn't accept a job that might not be confirmed in a month or two, especially a judge who didn't care about being dragged into political skirmishes.
If Senators had voted, he would have won, especially in this cojones-less Congress, with almost all or all the Republicans voting in favor and maybe even a few Democrats that can't afford to look too liberal in their homestates (how low have we fallen when a US Senator can't even follow his conscience on such an important issue.)
No, I think this went the right way, because now the Democrats, not having voted for him, are free to lambaste him (I'm gonna take bets that they won't anymore in a few days,) and his position is weakened at the UN, which causes him to be less effective, especially in meetings with representative from countries like France.
I also read that this will make it harder for Roberts to be easily confirmed, 'cause now the Democrats are [make that might be] quite incensed about being overstepped like this by the White House.
Post a Comment