Alberto Gonzales Resigns as Attorney General

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only question a future AG candidate needs to be asked:

"Will you, or will you not, enforce duly enacted and legal subpoenas against current and former members of the Executive branch?"

If the answer is no, there's no confirmation. Period.

Cycloptichorn

If there's no confirmation, there's a recess appointment.

He doesn't resign until Sep. 17th or so. No recess appointment.

The Dems can keep any recess appointments from happening they want to, by keeping a Pro Forma group in session.

Nice try, though.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only question a future AG candidate needs to be asked:

"Will you, or will you not, enforce duly enacted and legal subpoenas against current and former members of the Executive branch?"

If the answer is no, there's no confirmation. Period.

Cycloptichorn

If there's no confirmation, there's a recess appointment.

He doesn't resign until Sep. 17th or so. No recess appointment.

The Dems can keep any recess appointments from happening they want to, by keeping a Pro Forma group in session.

Nice try, though.

Cycloptichorn

If the Democrats try to run the Senate with just a minimal group of Democrats, all the Republicans would need to do is show up in larger numbers and they could cause a lot of mischief with their newfound "voting majority".

If the Democrats want to keep the Senate in session all the time, they are going to have to all give up their vacations.

Plus, there is nothing stopping Bush from twisting the definition of recess, and making a recess appointment over a long weekend even.

Are the Democrats prepared to make what would amount to a year-long filibuster?

And if Bush decided to keep Gonzales on until the new guy was either confirmed or given a recess appointment?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only question a future AG candidate needs to be asked:

"Will you, or will you not, enforce duly enacted and legal subpoenas against current and former members of the Executive branch?"

If the answer is no, there's no confirmation. Period.

Cycloptichorn

If there's no confirmation, there's a recess appointment.

He doesn't resign until Sep. 17th or so. No recess appointment.

The Dems can keep any recess appointments from happening they want to, by keeping a Pro Forma group in session.

Nice try, though.

Cycloptichorn

If the Democrats try to run the Senate with just a minimal group of Democrats, all the Republicans would need to do is show up in larger numbers and they could cause a lot of mischief with their newfound "voting majority".

If the Democrats want to keep the Senate in session all the time, they are going to have to all give up their vacations.

Plus, there is nothing stopping Bush from twisting the definition of recess, and making a recess appointment over a long weekend even.

Are the Democrats prepared to make what would amount to a year-long filibuster?

And if Bush decided to keep Gonzales on until the new guy was either confirmed or given a recess appointment?

08.27.07 -- 11:34AM // link
Recess Appointment

Judged by the standards of our history, a recess appointment to replace Alberto Gonzales sounds like an incredible proposition. But don't be so sure. Just as we saw with the 'pardon scooter' movement, the word seems already to have gone out to the folks on the right to start preparing the ground for just such a move by the president. I've already heard a few just this morning saying it would be the right thing for the president to do. Watch for it.

--Josh Marshall

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only question a future AG candidate needs to be asked:

"Will you, or will you not, enforce duly enacted and legal subpoenas against current and former members of the Executive branch?"

If the answer is no, there's no confirmation. Period.

Cycloptichorn

If there's no confirmation, there's a recess appointment.

He doesn't resign until Sep. 17th or so. No recess appointment.

The Dems can keep any recess appointments from happening they want to, by keeping a Pro Forma group in session.

Nice try, though.

Cycloptichorn

If the Democrats try to run the Senate with just a minimal group of Democrats, all the Republicans would need to do is show up in larger numbers and they could cause a lot of mischief with their newfound "voting majority".

Yes, but they wouldn't do so. There's little reason to sacrifice to support Bush any longer.

oralloy wrote:

Plus, there is nothing stopping Bush from twisting the definition of recess, and making a recess appointment over a long weekend even.

Yes, there is; it's called the Law. You may have heard of it. Bush could attempt to do it, but it wouldn't be legal and would certainly bring condemnation down upon his head. So he won't.

oralloy wrote:

Are the Democrats prepared to make what would amount to a year-long filibuster?

And if Bush decided to keep Gonzales on until the new guy was either confirmed or given a recess appointment?

Gonzales resigned; Bush can't choose to keep him on. They guy chose to quit. He can't go back on it now without looking even more the fool.

You're grasping at straws;

there will be no recess appointment.

Whatever candidate that comes forth will be put through the grinder when it comes to enforcing subpoenas.

It's as I said earlier, Oralloy - refusing to enforce subpoenas is a legitimate reason not to confirm.

The Constitution states that Congress (the Senate specifically) must be 'in recess' for appointments to go on. No recess, no appointments. Weekends don't count.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's as I said earlier, Oralloy - refusing to enforce subpoenas is a legitimate reason not to confirm.

I doubt the nominee will come out and say they will refuse to enforce a subpoena.

Far more likely is a vague answer that doesn't really say anything at all.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Constitution states that Congress (the Senate specifically) must be 'in recess' for appointments to go on. No recess, no appointments. Weekends don't count.

Who says a weekend (or a long weekend) doesn't count?

Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on such a thing?

How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President
May Make a Recess Appointment?

The Constitution does not specify the length oftime that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter recesses have become more commonplace, Attorneys General and the Office of Legal Counsel have offered differing views on this issue. Most recently, in 1993, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recessof more than three days.

Appointments made during short recesses (less than 30 days),
however, have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve a political cost for the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances where Senators perceive that the President is using the recess appointment process to circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who is opposed in the Senate.

Does he actually recall resigning? He probably doesn't remember resigning.

Quote:

How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President
May Make a Recess Appointment?

The Constitution does not specify the length oftime that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter recesses have become more commonplace, Attorneys General and the Office of Legal Counsel have offered differing views on this issue. Most recently, in 1993, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recessof more than three days.

Appointments made during short recesses (less than 30 days),
however, have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve a political cost for the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances where Senators perceive that the President is using the recess appointment process to circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who is opposed in the Senate.

.
From Frequently asked questions about recess appointments

A weekend doesn't count. So there will be no recess appointment until at least December. And not even then, if the Dems choose not to allow him to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President
May Make a Recess Appointment?

The Constitution does not specify the length oftime that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter recesses have become more commonplace, Attorneys General and the Office of Legal Counsel have offered differing views on this issue. Most recently, in 1993, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recessof more than three days.

Appointments made during short recesses (less than 30 days),
however, have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve a political cost for the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances where Senators perceive that the President is using the recess appointment process to circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who is opposed in the Senate.

.
From Frequently asked questions about recess appointments

A weekend doesn't count. So there will be no recess appointment until at least December. And not even then, if the Dems choose not to allow him to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Looks like anything longer than three days counts. I had thought three days would count, thus my use of the term "long weekend".

Still, I don't think the Democrats really want to limit all their remaining recesses to 3 days from now on.

If the Democrats try to run the Senate with just a minimal group of Democrats, all the Republicans would need to do is show up in larger numbers and they could cause a lot of mischief with their newfound "voting majority".

Gonzales was a man almost without fans in Washington at the end, because he was never much appreciated or accepted by the conservative base of the Republican party and the conservative activists in Washington. And he certainly wasn't popular among the Democrats. He was simply a crony. And I don't mean that word to sound any worse than it is, but that was the case here.

oralloy wrote:

If the Democrats try to run the Senate with just a minimal group of Democrats, all the Republicans would need to do is show up in larger numbers and they could cause a lot of mischief with their newfound "voting majority".

No, they couldn't. Its called a quorum. You might want to look it up. The Senate is in session but it doesn't have a quorum so can't conduct business if any present member opposes that business and calls for a quorum.