Well, it's not like the average term of a Trump appointee is more than a couple of years anyway...

Recess appointments, to be plausibly considered constitutional, would require ratification by the Senate when it readjourns. Plus it would be crazy for Trump to try it - there are still Rinos in the Senate and the House who would defect. He needs them to get his policies enabled, so it would be stupid to waste goodwill on this issue when most of his picks will be confirmed anyway.

CampSkunk said:

---

Recess appointments, to be plausibly considered constitutional, would require ratification by the Senate when it readjourns. Plus it would be crazy for Trump to try it - there are still Rinos in the Senate and the House who would defect. He needs them to get his policies enabled, so it would be stupid to waste goodwill on this issue when most of his picks will be confirmed anyway.

---

The appointment expires at the End of their next Session

Simple solution! Never end the session! LOL

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dems would be all over this. TRUMP IS A DICTATOR!!!

---

as opposed to what trump is literally Hitler? i

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

I wonder if this was all a predetermined deal with Thune and co.

---

I think it had to be - I'll keep my mouth shut regarding Rick Scott - you get my cabinet approved, one way or another.

This has been out there in the ether forever. It's only just gotten popular to talk about this week post-Thune confirmation.

It will not come into play if the Senate does their job and confirm appointees, or else choose "choice B" and recess as in years past. Dismissing congress is a "choice C" and there's the "choice D" of having Vance come into the senate as its president and recognize senators who put forth a motion to conduct the appointment reviews instead of the majority leader (the John Adams maneuver).

Frankly, if it's legal, then I have little issue with it. Once the seal is broken it will get used in the future by both parties but the circumstances by which it may be triggered are comparatively rare so I don't view the likelihood of abuse as especially high.

This is a good explainer on recess appointments (to the Supreme Court, but the same applies to cabinet *I think*):

Im Gipper said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Recess appointments, to be plausibly considered constitutional, would require ratification by the Senate when it readjourns. Plus it would be crazy for Trump to try it - there are still Rinos in the Senate and the House who would defect. He needs them to get his policies enabled, so it would be stupid to waste goodwill on this issue when most of his picks will be confirmed anyway.

---

The appointment expires at the End of their next Session

Simple solution! Never end the session! LOL

---

Well, they do play games to stay in session even during vacations… not sure if they can call 2 years a continuous session…

Quote:

---

Once the seal is broken it will get used in the future by both parties but the circumstances by which it may be triggered are comparatively rare so I don't view the likelihood of abuse as especially high.

---

I mean, the Republicans rarely if ever block Dem cabinet confirmations (just look at the weirdos Biden got confirmed) when the shoe is on the other foot so I think this is better for Republicans over the long term if it becomes precedent.

thune has already said recess appointments are on the table if the democrats try to block appointments.

We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. We cannot let Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people.https://t.co/h6gDmjhbqn

— Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) November 10, 2024

question is, will it be on the table if republicans try to block gaetz?


for those interested, there is a question on the legality of trump appointing people during recess.

some argue the vacancy must "happen during the Recess," ie, offices that become vacant during that intermission

BMX Bandit said:

---

thune has already said recess appointments are on the table if the democrats try to block appointments.

We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. We cannot let Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people.https://t.co/h6gDmjhbqn

— Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) November 10, 2024

question is, will it be on the table if republicans try to block gaetz?


for those interested, there is a question on the legality of trump appointing people during recess.

some argue the vacancy must "happen during the Recess," ie, offices that become vacant during that intermission

---

Interesting

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dems would be all over this. TRUMP IS A DICTATOR!!!

---

I like checks and balances.

Was this was part of the deal to get Thune to be the majority leader and save the autistic screeching and media circus around the confirmation hearings?

How does calling the senate to recess work? Is it just a simple majority? Perhaps Thune leveraged the fact that if he didnt get majority leader, he would whip allies to not be able to reach agreement to recess and the confirmation circus would occur, delaying when they could get started working and Trump not getting his handpicked team.

Agreed. In the Senate there's generally a higher level of bipartisanship than the house and that's by design.

The dismissal of congress is a legally available sword of Damocles that is being talked about now as a probably intentional leak by the Trump tent to reinforce to the Senate they better get the job done, or else.

But doing so would only be necessary to ram through appointments that a future POTUS was hellbent on making, otherwise it's politically not practical, plus requires a unique set of circumstances between the executive branch, House and Senate to even put into effect.

The Banned said:

---

We'd all be freaking out if it went the other way. I don't like sidestepping the balance of power between the branches of government

---

I remember this coming up after Scalia died expectedly. Whether Obama would use a recess appointment to appoint his successor? IIRC, Obama was even asked about that and vowed he would not use a recess appointment for SCOTUS.

If it was a real possibility back then, it is a real possibility now.

Justin2010 said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Recess appointments, to be plausibly considered constitutional, would require ratification by the Senate when it readjourns. Plus it would be crazy for Trump to try it - there are still Rinos in the Senate and the House who would defect. He needs them to get his policies enabled, so it would be stupid to waste goodwill on this issue when most of his picks will be confirmed anyway.

---

Not immediately. They have to be confirmed or leave their office by the end of the NEXT TERM. A term is one year. They would have 2 years on the job.

---

And it would still turn the RINOS against him, and nothing would get done. I also wonder if the idea would be overturned when the Dems file suit (of course that will take some time). The case that ruled that Obama couldn't make a recess appointment in that situation was unanimous, but the important piece of it was only 5-4 that sort of rubber-stamped the practice. That vote was by the libs plus Kennedy. Now with all the originalists I bet another case would have a different outcome, and do we really want Trump slapped down over this? They will get confirmed, just not as quickly as he would like.

There was a House Ethics report due to drop tomorrow. Now they "can't" release it due to the fact that he resigned. Now that report might come up in confirmations. Very possible verging on likely. Gaetz claims he was targeted by a con-man. Also possible, even likely. But who knows, the guy is... let's settle on unconventional. Honestly I think we would have been better appointed to something that didn't require Senate confirmation. Everyone would have been happy except maybe Gaetz. I think the Missouri AG would have been a solid choice, done the job and so forth. TBH I'm not sure (almost certain) Gaetz has the discipline and attention to detail required for cleaning out the Augean Stables that is the DoJ. And it's a task that cannot wait.

So my main concern is there. I get the loyalty piece and Gaetz is likely to start throwing bombs and lighting everything on fire but I don't want the DoJ burned to the ground I want it salted like the fields of Carthage. Again, very little confidence Gaetz is that guy.

Time will tell, but the stated reason by Mike Johnson was to hold the Florida special election ASAP so the next Congress could have as many reps present as possible on Jan 3 to be effective ASAP.

But the timing of the house ethics report is too coincidental to ignore, too.

NEWS: Speaker Mike Johnson just announced that Matt Gaetz has resigned “effective immediately.” pic.twitter.com/bUtW7xpk3W

— David Gilmour (@davidmgilmour) November 14, 2024

For those interested in going down this rabbit hole.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/513/

Quote:

---

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER v. NOEL CANNING, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 26, 2014]

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join, concurring in the judgment.

Except where the Constitution or a valid federal law provides otherwise, all "Officers of the United States" must be appointed by the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." U. S. Const., Art. II, 2, cl. 2. That general rule is subject to an exception: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Id., 2, cl. 3. This case requires us to decide whether the Recess Appointments Clause authorized three appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 without the Senate's consent.

To prevent the President's recess-appointment power from nullifying the Senate's role in the appointment process, the Constitution cabins that power in two significant ways. First, it may be exercised only in "the Recess of the Senate," that is, the intermission between two formal legislative sessions. Second, it may be used to fill only those vacancies that "happen during the Recess," that is, offices that become vacant during that intermission. Both conditions are clear from the Constitution's text and structure, and both were well understood at the founding. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the appointments here at issue are invalid because they did not meet either condition.

Today's Court agrees that the appointments were in-valid, but for the far narrower reason that they were made during a 3-day break in the Senate's session. On its way to that result, the majority sweeps away the key textual limitations on the recess-appointment power. It holds, first, that the President can make appointments without the Senate's participation even during short breaks in the middle of the Senate's session, and second, that those appointments can fill offices that became vacant long before the break in which they were filled. The majority justifies those atextual results on an adverse-possession theory of executive authority: Presidents have long claimed the powers in question, and the Senate has not disputed those claims with sufficient vigor, so the Court should not "upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached." Ante, at 9.

The Court's decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates. To reach that result, the majority casts aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text in deference to late-arising historical practices that are ambiguous at best. The majority's insistence on deferring to the Executive's untenably broad interpretation of the power is in clear conflict with our precedent and forebodes a diminution of this Court's role in controversies involving the separation of powers and the structure of government. I concur in the judgment only.

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dems would be all over this. TRUMP IS A DICTATOR!!!

---

CDUB98 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dems would be all over this. TRUMP IS A DICTATOR!!!

---

---

I'm already sold!

Quote:

---

The ramifications would be huge - and I'm sure the Supreme Court would get involved - but the clause is pretty clear here. Heads would absolutely explode in DC and Cable News - which would be fun to watch.

---

The USSC would likely punt - it's a political question and they want nothing to do with it.

For those saying "we would freak out if it was done to us" - it has been done to us. The Dems threw out norms when Biden fired the GC of the NLRB immediately after taking office. That hadn't been done before.

I don't care about norms. Do whatever it takes to roll back this mess.

CampSkunk said:

---

Justin2010 said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Recess appointments, to be plausibly considered constitutional, would require ratification by the Senate when it readjourns. Plus it would be crazy for Trump to try it - there are still Rinos in the Senate and the House who would defect. He needs them to get his policies enabled, so it would be stupid to waste goodwill on this issue when most of his picks will be confirmed anyway.

---

Not immediately. They have to be confirmed or leave their office by the end of the NEXT TERM. A term is one year. They would have 2 years on the job.

---

And it would still turn the RINOS against him, and nothing would get done. I also wonder if the idea would be overturned when the Dems file suit (of course that will take some time). The case that ruled that Obama couldn't make a recess appointment in that situation was unanimous, but the important piece of it was only 5-4 that sort of rubber-stamped the practice. That vote was by the libs plus Kennedy. Now with all the originalists I bet another case would have a different outcome, and do we really want Trump slapped down over this? They will get confirmed, just not as quickly as he would like.

---

Agreed - Trump would lose a lot of political capital and law-making would grind to a halt.

But I feel it's becoming clear that cleaning up the Executive branch is Trump's top priority. He doesn't need Congress if all he wants to do is dismantle the deep state.

Quote:

---

The USSC would likely punt - it's a political question and they want nothing to do with it.

---

they have previously ruled on it and likely would again

BMX Bandit said:

---

thune has already said recess appointments are on the table if the democrats try to block appointments.

We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. We cannot let Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people.https://t.co/h6gDmjhbqn

— Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) November 10, 2024

question is, will it be on the table if republicans try to block gaetz?


for those interested, there is a question on the legality of trump appointing people during recess.

some argue the vacancy must "happen during the Recess," ie, offices that become vacant during that intermission

---

Seems to me that Thune can have his cake and eat it, too. He can appease Trump by calling a recess and allowing recess appointments, then, at some point in the not too distant future (well before the end of this session), he can allow the Gaetz nomination to come to the floor for a vote, where it will probably fail and thereby end Gaetz's tenure as AG.

aezmvp said:

---

There was a House Ethics report due to drop tomorrow. Now they "can't" release it due to the fact that he resigned. Now that report might come up in confirmations. Very possible verging on likely. Gaetz claims he was targeted by a con-man. Also possible, even likely. But who knows, the guy is... let's settle on unconventional. Honestly I think we would have been better appointed to something that didn't require Senate confirmation. Everyone would have been happy except maybe Gaetz. I think the Missouri AG would have been a solid choice, done the job and so forth. TBH I'm not sure (almost certain) Gaetz has the discipline and attention to detail required for cleaning out the Augean Stables that is the DoJ. And it's a task that cannot wait.

So my main concern is there. I get the loyalty piece and Gaetz is likely to start throwing bombs and lighting everything on fire but I don't want the DoJ burned to the ground I want it salted like the fields of Carthage. Again, very little confidence Gaetz is that guy.

---