The Supreme Court has agreed to take up, in its next term, the question of recess appointments and of what is a “recess.” The DC Circuit had ruled, in the case being appealed, that certain NLRB appointments were unconstitutional and so invalid because they had occurred while the Senate was in session and not in recess. That court also held both that an actual recess could only occur between the year-long sessions of a Congress and that a recess appointment could be made only for a vacancy that originated during that recess.
President Barack Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verilli, in his filing before the Supremes argued with a straight face that were the Court to uphold the DC ruling, it would restrict the president’s power.
To which I ask, “Yeah, and…?”
Verilli also argued with similar seriousness that upholding the DC ruling
…would deem invalid hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents since early in the nation’s history[.]
Umm, no. It would deem invalid the appointments on appeal and possibly the appointments made under similar circumstances since the NLRB appoints at the start of 2012. Verilli knows better.