You Say That As If It Were a Bad Thing


The New York Times has an editorial up whining about the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruling that presidential recess appointments have to be made during a period when the Senate is actually in recess. You see, the problem with following the requirements of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitutions is that to do so would invalidate the appointments that Barack Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board and negate all the decision rendered by the NLRB for the past year. It would also bring the appointment of Richard Corday as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the ton or so of regulations that agency has promulgated into question.

So what’s wrong with that?

Why Am I Not Surprised?


Nancy Pelosi says, “But we’re glad the president took the lead, went out there, was bold, and made the appointments.”

Uh, huh.

I notice that she hasn’t tried to defend the “recess appointments” on legal grounds. As Allahpundit points out, that argument isn’t available to the Democrats because pro forma Senate sessions were a part of how they stymied many Bush appointments. Of course, such logic probably won’t prevent some Democrats … Oh, never mind.

Is it November yet?