Quote Originally Posted by GeoFisher View Post
Does not matter.............there are official rules for recess and not in recess. The Senate made it clear to the Administration they were NOT in recess.

THEN, with no one around, the Obamunist in Chief decided to "slip" these "recess" appointments past. It didn't work and folks were rightly pissed.

Here is the reasoning for the ruling, and I quite frankly agree:

"
The court case turned on whether the Senate was in recess when Mr. Obama made the appointments during a holiday break early last year. The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.

But Republican lawmakers held minutes-long meetings every few days, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that meant the chamber was technically in session.

While the plaintiff's case centered on those sessions, the court went a step further, declaring that Mr. Obama's appointments fell outside the bounds of his authority. It ruled that the Constitution's description of a recess refers only to the period between the roughly yearlong formal "sessions" of Congress, rather than during an effective break in proceedings. In this case, the Republicans contend Congress started a new session on Jan. 3, and Mr. Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4.
"

So what happened was, the court did not comment on whether or not Congress was in recess. What they said was that any and all "intrasession" recess appointments are unconstitutional, only "intersession" recess appointments are allowed. Well, if that's true, then a whole lot of people will have to lose their jobs, because Presidents have been using doing this exact same thing for many years, including many of those appointments made by Clinton and Bush that jcb listed. And what's more, this exact legal question was decided in the President's favor back when Ted Kennedy challenged George W. Bush's nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit:

http://www.wlf.org/upload/101404RS.pdf

So, why would this be constitutional when Bush does it, but not when Obama does it? Because that is what this court is saying. Again, they're not commenting on whether Congress was or was not in recess, at least not from what I've read about the case. They're trying to issue a sweeping ruling against ALL such appointments, and I'd just about bet this will get shot down by the Supreme Court.