Recess Appointments

Now he's done it! Not content to run roughshod over the will of the people by signing healthcare reform into law, President Obama has taken us one step closer to tyranny by making a number of recess appointments--15 to be exact--to various federal agencies, thus bypassing the Senate's "Advise and Consent" role. Republicans are predictably outraged, particularly by the appointment of Craig Becker, a union lawyer, to the National Labor Relations Board. They are worried that he will be too friendly to union members. (Shocking that a member of the National Labor Relations Board would be sympathetic to the concerns of, y'know, laborers, but let that go for the moment.)

In fairness, we understand and, to an extent, sympathize with those who argue that this exercise of presidential prerogative is a bit unseemly. Not to be hypocritical, we were outraged when former President Bush appointed John Bolton UN Ambassador in the same manner. But that's the point. Republicans who are crying foul must acknowledge that this is a fairly standard tactic. Indeed, we appreciate the comments of Senator Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.), who acknowledged the political rationale: "[President Obama] has some precedent. Others have done it, so I'm not critical of him doing it." He then goes on to say that his main problem was with the Becker nomination, not the other appointees.

We would say to Sen. Coburn and all like-minded Republicans, though, if you had no major problem with the other appointees, why weren't they confirmed? Again the desire to obstruct took precedence over the responsibility to govern. Is Craig Becker "too ideological"? Probably not for our tastes, but possibly for some other people's. But if Republicans are going to stand in the way of EVERY appointment, why should the President solicit their approval of ANY appointment? Why should the President seek advice if there is little likelihood of receiving consent?

Wasn't it John McCain, the de facto leader of the opposition party, who declared after the healthcare reform legislation passed that there would be no further cooperation between Republicans and Democrats for the remainder of the year? That pretty much closes off any avenue for negotiation.

In all honesty, we would like to see an end to end-runs. We would love to see Presidents go through the proper congressional channels when making appointments, And we would like to see congressional committees approve the appointments. And--OK, brace yourselves--we would like to see this regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.

With the exception of the federal judiciary, whose members are appointed for life and whose rulings may have an outsize impact on the lives of the citizenry, we think Presidents should essentially be able to appoint whomever they want to federal agencies. Sure, we may end up with more Michael "Heckuva job, Brownie" Browns in charge of agencies like FEMA, but obviously the "Advise and Consent" restrictions didn't prevent that disaster anyway. If Presidents want to appoint the incompetent, the ideologically questionable, the crypto-Canadian, let 'em; and let 'em face the consequences of those appointments.

We won't always agree with these appointments, and we may be downright upset about them, but if someone has been elected President, he or she has the right to form a functioning government to the best of his abilities: Call it a perk of office.