Pro forma sessions are bollocks, though. Even the Bush administration stated that a recess appointment could still be made when there's only pro forma sessions. Besides, Obama has made much less recess appointments than Clinton, Reagan, or either Bush did, per year.
Now, if you want a legitimate criticism, apparently Dodd-Frank specifies that the appointee has no actual authority unless he's approved by the Senate, so it was nothing but useless politicking.
So, the Obama will decide decide when the Senate is in session? The Senate may assert it is session but you seem to believe that Obama can simply overrule them whenever he wants? Hmm.
Now you may believe that that invoking "bollocks" constitutes some type of argument, but its a pretty specious one (to put it mildly).Ah, I wasn't giving an argument.
I was in a bit of a rush that morning so I was just giving my two cents, and citing some related facts that I recalled. Here's my argument, though.
I don't believe that a pro forma session shouldn't be considered a true session of the Senate. With only a couple of members opening and quickly closing the Senate for the day, they don't have the quorum to do anything even if they wanted to. Thus, I think the Constitututional intent regarding recess appointments still holds, because the Senate wouldn't be available to approve the nominee even if they wanted to do so. For all intents and purposes, the Senate is in recess even if pro forma sessions occur.
I said the number of recess appointments each made
per year. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. Note this chart:
Yes, honestly, I would. The chicanery of fake Senate sessions to avoid recess appointments is even worse than the procedural filibuster. I honestly prefer if neither were allowed at all, regardless of which party is in power. This use of parliamentary procedure shenanigans should be stopped before it becomes a huge problem. If pro forma sessions end up becoming a legitimate method to prevent appointments, then a handful of Senators would have as much control over the executive branch as the President himself, and that certainly violates the separation of powers.
On a somewhat related note, I don't think recess appointments should be allowed to the Federal judiciary and believe both Clinton and Bush II made very inappropriate decisions in that regard. They're supposed to be completely independent and serve for life- not serve until the end of the next session of the Senate, pending confirmation.
Fair enough. I mentioned it because I assumed this thread was (at least in part) inspired by the Cordray nomination, given the timing and all.
