My Turn: Presidential-Senate friction continues
The saga of Bush and Bolton versus the U.S. Senate continues apace. Last Monday night, the Senate again rebuffed the president’s controversial nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. This is the second time in four weeks the Senate has denied Mr. Bolton an “up or down” vote.
However, President Bush does have an ace in the hole so to speak. He can appoint Mr. Bolton to the U.N. post temporarily when the Senate recesses for the Fourth of July holidays. Mr. Bolton would then hold that post until January, 2007.
Clearly, the president has the Constitutional authority to appoint Mr. Bolton while the Senate recesses. Since George Washington’s time, presidents have made some 3,000 recess appointments to high executive branch or judicial posts.
Typically, these have been after Congress has adjourned for the year, usually in December. However, presidents have also made nearly 300 recess appointments during so-called “intra-session” recesses, like the one coming up next weekend.
President Bush has exercised this Constitutional power before, notably in the case of Mr. William Pryor, whom he appointed temporarily to the U.S. Court of Appeals. He did so after Senate Democrats had stymied an up or down vote on Pryor. Bush then re-nominated Pryor, and the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 53-45 earlier this month.
So, the president can send his man to the U.N. temporarily if he wants to. The question, it seems to me, is: Should he? Recess appointments often cause friction between the president and the Senate. Mr. Bolton is a controversial candidate for a sensitive post. The president needs the goodwill of the Senate for more pressing issues than Mr. Bolton’s appointment. That said, I believe President Bush really does deserve an up or down vote on his nominees.
By the way, proponents of the infamous filibuster, or the threat of it, liken it to a Senate version of the presidential veto. The problem with this analogy is that the veto is Constitutional; the filibuster is not. Instead, it is one of those arcane customs of the Senate that has been used for both noble and ignoble purposes since its inception in the 19th Century.
The current friction between President Bush and the Senate is likely to increase dramatically when the stakes are raised to the level of Supreme Court Justice nominees. The retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist appears imminent. Whether the president decides to nominate his replacement from within, perhaps, Justice Antonin Scalia, or go beyond the Supreme Court for a conservative of his choice, he is sure to face the ire of the Senate Democrats.
My guess is the president will try to promote from within the Supreme Court. That way, he gets two opportunities to stamp his imprint on the Court, and extend his legacy for decades to come. More on all that later.
(Thomas B. Vaughn is a professor at Motlow College and co-host of the radio show “Viewpoints” which airs on 91.3 WCPI.)