i never liked recess appointments. i understand the basic idea--sometimes a government position is so critical it must be filled right away, even if the senate has not had time to complete the confirmation process. but most recess appointments have nothing to do with that. a lot of these positions are just not that critical. do we really need a UN ambassador right away?
so while i can understand why recess appointments are in the constitution, in practice they rarely seem called for. actually, both bush and clinton seemed to use them to force appointments that were not all that critical but were nevertheless stalled in the senate for political reasons. in that context the recess appointment seems like more of an abuse of the process than anything else.
in any case, these things always follow a familiar script. the president does a recess appointment and the opposition calls the decision a big mistake. is it really a mistake? does a recess appointment really poison the candidate's chances of getting confirmed later? if congress were less partisan i could image senators who would otherwise be inclined to vote in favor of a candidate be so offended by the president's decision to bypass them that it affects their vote. but that's a big "if" and i don't think it reflects the hyper=partisan senate of today, where republicans are very disciplined, especially when it comes to bush's nominees.
personally, i would love it if bush's recess appointment in this case was a mistake. i'm no fan of bolton, as i've mentioned before. but i wonder if that's not just wishful thinking.
