Alberto Gonzales Resigns as Attorney General

oralloy wrote:

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.

I think the democrats could hold out until Bush leaves office if it meant no more of those recess appointments sliding through.

The word is out: the next attorney general will be Harriet Miers.

It is interesting that Bush said that the Dems dragged Alberto through the mud. But isn't that appropriate considering Alberto dragged the constitution through the mud?

parados wrote:

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.

The Republicans aren't that far in the minority. I think they could manage a quorum if they all showed up and added their numbers to a small number of Democrats.

And if not, I believe that if the Senate is in session and there isn't a quorum, they can have absent members arrested and delivered to the Capitol. Would the Democrats give the Republicans an opportunity to have them arrested and dragged to the Capitol in public?

And if there isn't a quorum in four days, what's to stop Bush from saying the Senate is "technically in recess" and making his recess appointment?

I have been reading about the whole recess appointment thing and I really don't see the big deal because apparently recess appointees are only appointed until the end of the Senate session and then must go before the senate. I have been thinking they are just appointed for life (judges) without having to be vetted by the Senate.

However, it would be a big deal if the Senate was to go on recess and then Bush appointed another Bush yes man/woman in order to impede the investigations going on right now.

In that case, I bet you anything the democrats stick to their guns and not go on any long recesses.

As for the wiretaps thing; it seems the democrats already caved on that; mores the pity.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

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.

The Republicans aren't that far in the minority. I think they could manage a quorum if they all showed up and added their numbers to a small number of Democrats.

And if not, I believe that if the Senate is in session and there isn't a quorum, they can have absent members arrested and delivered to the Capitol. Would the Democrats give the Republicans an opportunity to have them arrested and dragged to the Capitol in public?

And if there isn't a quorum in four days, what's to stop Bush from saying the Senate is "technically in recess" and making his recess appointment?

Where did you people learn civics?

Quorum requires that 51 Senators be present and say "Aye" when their name is called. Unless Democrats are willing to answer the quorum call there is no quorum.

Even if by some chance a quorum was achieved, the presiding officer can recognize a democrat to speak which causes a filibuster which requires 60 votes to stop.

Arrested? Where did you get this silly idea? From Texas? Texas is NOT the US Senate.

parados wrote:

[Quorum requires that 51 Senators be present and say "Aye" when their name is called. Unless Democrats are willing to answer the quorum call there is no quorum.

Seems to me that the Republicans can contribute 49 of those 51 Senators. How many Democrats were planned to be present in this hypothetical skeleton senate session?

parados wrote:

Even if by some chance a quorum was achieved, the presiding officer can recognize a democrat to speak which causes a filibuster which requires 60 votes to stop.

Arrested? Where did you get this silly idea? From Texas? Texas is NOT the US Senate.

I got it from Wikipedia. After your previous message I double checked to verify my assumption that it only required 51 to reach quorum. That article said that the Senate was much like Texas in that missing legislators could be arrested and dragged back to the legislature in order to achieved quorum.

Note:

A prominent example of quorum-busting occurred in 2003, when the Texas House of Representatives was going to vote on a redistricting bill that would have favored the Republicans in the state. The House Democrats, certain of defeat if a quorum were present, chose not to be present in the House that day, but instead took a plane to Oklahoma, preventing the bill from passing due to a lack of a quorum. Legislative bodies often have rules to discourage quorum-busting. [b]In many U.S. legislative bodies, such as the United States Senate and House of Representatives, if there is no quorum present a call of the house could be ordered, which would cause absent members to be arrested and brought to the floor of the body[/b]. [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum[/URL]

Now whether the wiki article is correct is another thing. But I'd bet Bush would be more than happy to publicly arrest Democrats who were thwarting his ability to make a recess appointment.

But I'd bet Bush would be more than happy to publicly arrest Democrats who were thwarting his ability to make a recess appointment.

Now, if all the Dems show up when the sergaent at arms requests them which party has the majority?

oralloy wrote:

But I'd bet Bush would be more than happy to publicly arrest Democrats who were thwarting his ability to make a recess appointment.

Bush can't arrest any congressional democrat. The courts would rather quickly put an end to any such arrests.

I would be more than happy to cheer on the impeachment proceding that would quickly follow if Bush starts to arrest legislators.

It seems some people don't seem to even have rudimentary understanding of our government and how it works.

The Dems can keep him from recess appointing ad infinitum if they so choose. I've already outlined how this is possible. The fact that you choose to ignore it is either a symbol of idiocy or mendacity on your part.

The rule allowing Senators to be 'compelled to arrive' isn't enforced at Bush's request, but at Harry Reid's. An important point which you seem to have missed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Dems can keep him from recess appointing ad infinitum if they so choose. I've already outlined how this is possible. The fact that you choose to ignore it is either a symbol of idiocy or mendacity on your part.

I've hardly ignored it. Are you suffering from reading comprehension problems? I've made a good number of posts on that topic here.

In particular, I've pointed out the reality that if the Democrats wish to play such tricks, they are going to all have to stay in Washington without any more vacations for the next year and a half (or however long it is til January 2009).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The rule allowing Senators to be 'compelled to arrive' isn't enforced at Bush's request, but at Harry Reid's. An important point which you seem to have missed.

That's not what the rule says. It says it can be requested by a majority of senators who are present at the quorumless session.

If the Democrats choose to go off on vacation and leave a skeleton crew, they aren't necessarily going to be in the majority when the vote is held to decide whether absent senators will be arrested and dragged back to the Senate.

parados wrote:

Now, if all the Dems show up when the sergaent at arms requests them which party has the majority?

If they all show up each time the sergeant at arms requests them, so much for the notion of them going off on vacation while leaving the Senate in session.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

But I'd bet Bush would be more than happy to publicly arrest Democrats who were thwarting his ability to make a recess appointment.

Bush can't arrest any congressional democrat. The courts would rather quickly put an end to any such arrests.

Why? Would the courts be incapable of reading the rule that lets errant senators be arrested and brought to the Senate to fulfill quorum?

parados wrote:

I would be more than happy to cheer on the impeachment proceding that would quickly follow if Bush starts to arrest legislators.

Said impeachment would fail in the Senate due to the fact that Republicans understand that enforcing the law is not a high crime and misdemeanor, due to the fact that Republicans would realize that the arrests were due to the Democrats trying to prevent Bush from exercising his Constitutional powers to make a recess appointment, and due to the fact that the Democrats recently let Clinton off the hook for lying under oath (which is an actual impeachable offense).

parados wrote:

It seems some people don't seem to even have rudimentary understanding of our government and how it works.

Yep. Like the people who can't accept that Bush has the power to make recess appointments if Democratic extremists block a reasonable nominee.

Scenario: Reid is the senator who stays, and he doesn't allow anything the Republicans say or do to come to the floor for a vote. If he won't allow it to be voted on, there's no majority which can compel anyone to attend.

Even if that scenario didn't work, it wouldn't be Bush - as you claimed - who would have the power to compel the Senators to attend.

Not that any of it matters, as he didn't recess appoint anyone and probably will not do so for the remainder of his short, pathetic term.

The Sergeant at arms is the ONLY one empowered to bring them to the floor. They can't be arrested by anyone from the executive branch.

It only allows for the Sergeant at Arms to be asked to compel them to appear.

Bush has the power only when Congress is in recess. If Congress doesn't recess then Bush doesn't have the power. Congress is not mandated to recess by the law or any congressional rules.

Let us know when Bush even bothers to nominate anyone.

What would you say if Bush tries to get around the process by just doing a recess appointment and never nominating anyone.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Dems can keep him from recess appointing ad infinitum if they so choose. I've already outlined how this is possible. The fact that you choose to ignore it is either a symbol of idiocy or mendacity on your part.

I've hardly ignored it. Are you suffering from reading comprehension problems? I've made a good number of posts on that topic here.

In particular, I've pointed out the reality that if the Democrats wish to play such tricks, they are going to all have to stay in Washington without any more vacations for the next year and a half (or however long it is til January 2009).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The rule allowing Senators to be 'compelled to arrive' isn't enforced at Bush's request, but at Harry Reid's. An important point which you seem to have missed.

That's not what the rule says. It says it can be requested by a majority of senators who are present at the quorumless session.

If the Democrats choose to go off on vacation and leave a skeleton crew, they aren't necessarily going to be in the majority when the vote is held to decide whether absent senators will be arrested and dragged back to the Senate.

parados wrote:

The Sergeant at arms is the ONLY one empowered to bring them to the floor. They can't be arrested by anyone from the executive branch.

The rules expect the sergeant at arms to compel errant senators all by himself without any aid? What is he expected to do if a senator physically resists?

parados wrote:

It only allows for the Sergeant at Arms to be asked to compel them to appear.

And how is he expected to compel them?

You haven't pointed to any reality.

You keep claiming they would be arrested and dragged back. There is no such provision in the rule.

Yes, they could request a forum call. Yes, they could vote to compel Senators to appear. But they can't force anyone to arrest the Senators nor can they force a timeline of when they would appear.