Rehnquist cancer is Bush ploy for recess appointment

[wuushew]

I am not arguing that the Chief Justice's medical condition is not serious nor do I wish him ill. However consider the coincidental timing of this announcement. First of all Bush knows that control of the Senate is very uncertain as are his own prospects for "re"-election. Bush more than any President in my memory has enjoyed the executive privilege afforded him in Article II Section 2.

Appointments of this nature are not unheard of as it was Earl Warren who was appointed to the Supreme Court with a recess appointment under President Eisenhower. The game will probably go something like this....Rehnquist will be successfully treated for thyroid cancer allowing him to rule on any repeats of Bush v Gore after November 2nd. Sometime between December and January 20th Renquist will retire and Bush will elevate Scalia to Chief Justice. The replacement for Scalia will occur after the new Senate is sworn in but by then it will be harder to make partisan political arguments in the public eye. That is if the Senate wasn't full of pink tutu Dems, which unfortunately it is. Watch Daschle concede the fight in the name of bi-partisanship.



The strongest argument in favor of the constitutionality of recess appointments to the federal judiciary is the history of the practice. Presidents have made a total of 310 recess appointments to the federal judiciary since 1789, including eleven appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate has confirmed 263 of these recess appointees to serve as Article III judges and has rejected only one Supreme Court recess appointee

http://www.bipc.com/news.cfm?mode=article&article_id=492&practice_id=56

[benburch]

1. I think you are right.

This is a very bad development.

[PSU84]

2. I doubt Rehnquist will quit, but

Article II, section 2, Clause 2 gives the Senate the power to advise and consent to nominations, while Clause 3 says:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

This enables the President to make an appointment during a Senate recess that would otherwise require the advise and consent of the Senate, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, federal judges, directors of federal agencies, and members of federal boards and commissions -- even Supreme Court Justices. Since 1791, 15 Supreme Court Justices began their tenure with a recess appointment, the most recent being Justice Potter Stewart in 1958.

[agingdem]

3. I don't think so...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg had colon cancer a few years ago and she didn't step down. And..if thyroid cancer is caught early enough it's curable.

[wuushew]

5. Ginsberg isn't as old as Rehnquist

He can't go on indefinitely. Is he going to pound the gavel straight into the grave?

[Bunny]

4. Be careful, or you'll be accused of "making no sense" and using a "double

standard".

That is if the Senate wasn't full of pink tutu Dems, which unfortunately it is. Watch Daschle concede the fight in the name of bi-partisanship.

I made the same comment about not trusting the Senate Dems in another thread, and those were the responses I got. :eyes:

[napi21]

6. I don't think he can APPOINT a justice if there isn't a vacancy.

I just heard a report from Rehnquist's office that said he's expected back to work in a week or so. I also don't see him instantly retiring in Jan.

I think you're reaching on this one.

[davsand]

7. That appointment must be confirmed or it ends...

...when the next session begins. While Federal Judges have traditionally been confirmed, it is not a cakewalk for any appointee that goes in on a recess appointment.

On an odd note, Warren was originally a recess appointment if I remember correctly.

Laura

On edit: Here is an article regarding recess appointments. It may do a better job of explaining it than I did:

http://www.bipc.com/news.cfm?mode=article&article_id=492&practice_id=56

[gatlingforme]

8. Thanks for the info....