NUKING THEMSELVES:

Court declines to intervene on judicial appointment that bypassed Senate: Judicial appointments made by Bush during congressional recess are controversial, but in this case the Supreme Court lets the practice stand. (Warren Richey, 3/22/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

The recess appointment cases were significant because they were seen as a possible test of whether Mr. Bush would be free to use the authority to bypass attempts by Senate Democrats to stall judicial nominations indefinitely - including at the high court. [...]

By declining to take up a case challenging Mr. Pryor's February 2004 recess appointment to the federal appeals court in Atlanta, the justices have let stand an 8-2 decision upholding a broad interpretation of the president's authority. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts and others argued in court papers that the Constitution's recess appointment power should be construed narrowly to forbid the president from making appointments such as Mr. Pryor's. [...]

The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in mid-October that the president could make recess appointments during any Senate recess longer than a few days.

The latest action sets the stage for what many analysts expect will become a divisive battle between Senate Democrats and the White House over judicial nominations in general and Supreme Court vacancies in particular. If Democratic Senators seek to filibuster a high court nominee, some suggest the White House could respond by turning to a recess appointment. Under the US Constitution, the recess appointee would be entitled to serve until the end of the Senate's next session - as long as two years.

How would you like to be a Democrat campaigning for the Senate when your victory would mean the, at least temporary, unseating of a Justice Gonzales or Rogers Brown?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 21, 2005 4:21 PM