The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Could President Trump Recess Appoint His Entire Cabinet Under Justice Scalia's Noel Canning Concurrence?
Would a person serving under the Vacancies Reform Act, who resigns, create a vacancy for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause? Would a presidential adjournment of Congress be an inter-session or an intra-session recess?
Ed Whelan writes that President Trump may adjourn Congress as a means to instantly confirm his entire cabinet without any confirmation hearings. In an earlier post, Ed writes that this approach may risk the Court overruling Justice Breyer's Noel Canning majority opinion, and adopting Justice Scalia's concurrence.
I maintain that Justice Scalia's opinion is correct on originalist grounds, as I noted in my earlier post. And I would be happy to see Justice Breyer's majority opinion repudiated. But even so, is this potential plan inconsistent with Justice Scalia's concurrence?
Under Scalia's opinion, the President could only fill a vacancy that arises during the recess of the Senate. Trump's plan would only be feasible if these cabinet positions become vacant during the recess of the Senate. Presumably, the holdover Biden cabinet officials will be long gone on January 20. And, on January 20, I suspect the President will use the Vacancies Reform Act to detail friendly people already in the federal government to serve as acting cabinet officials. What if one of them were to resign during the presidentially-induced recess? That is, on January 21, Trump adjourns Congress, and all acting cabinet officials resign. Would those vacancies have arisen during the recess of the Senate? Or, would the relevant starting point be when the last-confirmed official resigned? I don't know how the Recess Appointments Clause, as understood by Scalia, interacts with the Vacancies Reform Act. I doubt anyone has given this issue much thought.
There is a second issue. Under Justice Scalia's concurrence, the President can only make a recess appointment during an inter-session recess, and not during an intra-session recess. That is, the President can make a recess appointment during the recess between sessions, and not during the recess in the middle of a session. Would a presidential-induced recess be an inter-session recess or an intra-session recess? This power has never been exercised before, so there is no precedent.
I had always thought this clause would cause an inter-session recess. At the Framing, intra-session recesses were very rare. Generally, Congress would meet for continuous periods, taking only short breaks, and then take very long inter-session breaks. To the extent this power was more likely to be used, it would be used to decide when to conclude one session, and begin another. But I don't know. I do think it is the case that this clause was not designed to trigger the President's recess appointment power. But that is a separate question from what kind of recess this power would trigger.
Those who joined the Noel Canning majority may very soon regret their choice.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Let’s throw away norms in ruthless pursuit of implementing the agenda desired by just over 50% of Americans” is not nice, not patriotic, and not a recipe for continuing to win elections.
And once all the votes are counted it’s probably going to be just *under* 50% of Americans.
And to be even more pedantic, it will be *under* 50% of voters. Not all are Americans, and not all Americans vote.
You need to take a jab for that TDS or the next four years are really going to hurt.
The insurrectionist Bob Casey and his coup-plotting traitor pal Marc Elias are suing to get votes from confirmed illegals to count.
No, he isn’t.
“The insurrectionist Bob Casey and his coup-plotting traitor pal Marc Elias are suing to get votes from confirmed illegals to count.”
Supporting facts, JHBHBE? How about a link to a pdf of the pleadings in any such lawsuit?
You should unretire so you could go back to having a personal assistant. You can’t seem to function without one, you keep insisting other people do your research for you.
HTH
I’m not asking anyone to do my research, JHBHBE. I simply presume that whatever you say is a lie until I see evidence that it is not. I doubt that I am the only one here who does so.
You claim that “The insurrectionist Bob Casey and his coup-plotting traitor pal Marc Elias are suing to get votes from confirmed illegals to count.” What facts support your assertion that any such lawsuit exists?
Casey has not conceded and is seeking a recount even though he appears to be behind in excess of the margin for which a recount is mandatory. There are something like 87k provisional ballots which have not been counted. Seems to me that it’s a dick move which is an extreme long shot (sort of like hoping to dine with QE2, to borrow a metaphor) but which does not justify the stupid fulminating by the propagandists at Breitbart, the NYP, the Wshington Examiner, et al.
That may be, but it has nothing to do with JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes’s assertion upthread that “The insurrectionist Bob Casey and his coup-plotting traitor pal Marc Elias are suing to get votes from confirmed illegals to count.”
Since JHBHBE is unable or unwilling to bring receipts supporting his claim, it is reasonable to infer that he simply lied.
To be genuinely and not just performatively pedantic, it will be less than, not under, 50% of voters.
Semantically, over and under denote spatial positioning. Numerical totals or percentages are greater than or less than.
We now return you to your regular programming.
What’s your basis for this claim? I don’t have access to the OED right now, but free online sources are showing “under” in the numerical sense going back to the 1300s.
The only thing more tedious than a tiresome pedant is a tiresome pedant who’s wrong.
“And once all the votes are counted it’s probably going to be just *under* 50% of Americans.”
The current population of the United States is more than 337.4 million. https://www.census.gov/popclock/?os=app&ref=app No political figure has ever gotten a vote total approaching 50% of Americans.
Idiot. TDS-addled idiot. It’s a lawyerly quibbly question, not a policy suggestion. Get a grip.
Yes, it’s 100% not a thing Trumpists in Washington are really considering. Why would they, it’s not like they’re thinking of appointing complete lunatics to senior government positions.
Yeah, I mean it’s not like Trump would do something ridiculous like nominate someone who was investigated for sex trafficking a minor as Attorney General.
They might even appoint an ugly man in a dress! Or a Queer who steals women’s clothes!
Frank
Norms are confirming people who will implement the policies the people voted for.
Norms aren’t stymying and protecting the most inhumane of all ruling organisms, The Bureaucracy.
What norms are we taking about now? Are the lawfare tactics used by the Democrats “norms” we want to preserve?
Separate question – Can the president adjourn congress? does the president have the power to adjourn congress? Granted I havent studied it, but seems unlikely on first impression
That was my first thought — what hat did he pull that rabbit from? I found this with Google:
But that’s only “in Case of Disagreement”, and if they both agree they don’t want to adjourn, the Prez is out of luck, unless lawyers can find some other idiotic quibble.
In other words, the president doesnt have much power to force congress to adjourn.
Following up on Absaroka comment – Its just going to Tick a whole bunch of people off and no one is going to be happy.
No; he doesn’t have much legal authority to force congress to adjourn. Whether he has the power to force it: well, these are the same people who took about a week to forgive and forget that he tried to have them killed on J6. They have less in the way of spines than a sponge. If he tells Mike Johnson (or Johnson’s even more Trumpy replacement) that he wants them to adjourn so he can appoint people, you think Johnson will say no?
So…
Thus, if through majority vote of their individual chamber’s members, both the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader agree to adjourn, Trump’s we don’t need no stinkin’ Senate Advice & Consent demand is satisfied.
If, per the last couple decades’ practice, Congressional leadership gavels in-and-out daily pro-forma sessions to avoid formal recess status, Trump is blocked from making recess appointments.
If one agrees to adjourn and one doesn’t, Trump can force adjournment “to such Time as he shall think proper,” which would be long enough to recess-appoint Gaetz as AG, Hegseth as SECDEF, and Gabbard as DNI (plus up to around 1,000 others he prefers not to be subjected to the inconvenience of Senate hearings).
Could somebody more knowledgeable in ConLaw than I, tell me if Trump can force adjournment absent such a House/Senate disagreement?
Is it possible the whole provision you bolded must be read together? So the President’s adjournment power only applies during an extraordinary session?
I would assume so, just as I would assume the current SCOTUS would not restrict the Chief Executive’s power to define “extraordinary Occasions.”
[And I thank everyone below more knowledgeable in ConLaw than I, to answer my above question well before I posed it. Answer is NO, though if the Senate does not approve adjournment, a sycophantic House will then create the necessary House/Senate disagreement at Trump’s request.]
U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 3.
So, as I read this part of the Constitution; a President has the power to adjourn Congress for an almost indefinite period. If President Santamonica can adjourn Congress for a week, then why not a month, or 5 months, or longer? Maybe I’d have to bring them back for a day or two, so I can give the State of the Union address. But I could adjourn them again the next day, no?
It seems like a pretty explicit power, and fairly unlimited, unless I’m missing a step. Of course; I assume that, in the real world, no president would want to do that, or would dare to do that. But, maybe a president who is about to be impeached? She could say, “Hmm, I’ll definitely be impeached unless I can stop the process. Hey, Congress is adjourned until Jan 21 of next year! See ya, losers!!!”
and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper
This part, correct? Because it sure reads to me like he can send them home, and tell them not to come back until he says. Or until Congress agrees on the time of adjournment?
Yes, if they disagree, he can send them home, and tell them not to come back until he says to. But all that really means in practice is that they have to come back into session at that time, not that they’re unable to come back into session earlier if they want.
This is just so arcane. No way it ever happens. I halfway think Professor Blackman is having some fun screwing with people’s heads. Looks pretty successful, judging by the comments. I am supremely amused.
Ed Whelan (Original author) crapped all over this idea. It won’t happen.
Completely different theory: Josh Blackman is trying to demonstrate that he is willing to engage in legal innovation to empower a particular president. He is doing in this in hopes of an appointment of a federal judgeship, or perhaps he’d settle for some position reporting directly to AG Gaetz.
It’s clickbait for constitutional scholars, that’s all.
The 20th Amendment requires Congress to meet once a year.
The presidential power to adjourn kicks in when there is disagreement between the houses. So, the Senate — allegedly more sane — would have to go along.
Yes, as I note below, that’s the problem: in order to make this happen, Trump needs the senate to sign on. And if they’re on board to take a norm-defying action that would result in all his nominees (whom he’s been announcing publicly ahead of time) that would (to put it mildly) generate massive controversy, it seems a fortiori that they’d be willing to just confirm all the nominees individually instead.
It’s also notable that no one appears to be pointing to anyone who’s actually suggesting that this would be a good idea, or why.
The only advantage I can see is that the Democrats could probably force individual votes on nominees, eating up time, while the recess gambit would allow for a mass appointment right up front, so that Trump could have a full cabinet right off the starting blocks.
Then, assuming the Senate majority had actually been OK with the gambit, they could hold the individual hearings on a relaxed schedule to render them normally confirmed nominees.
That’s not valueless, if Trump’s aim is to get off to a quick start.
they could hold the individual hearings on a relaxed schedule to render them normally confirmed nominees
Not necessarily “them”, maybe somene else. Note the Grenell acting DNI appointment was intended to, and did, enormously increase the Senate’s enthusiasm for Ratcliffe.
Right, so if the House wanted to adjourn so Trump could make his recess appointments, but the Senate didn’t want to so they could exercise their prerogative, the President could then break the tie and recess both houses.
Hadn’t thought of that, but since Congress convenes before the President, there’s a window for it.
Not quite. The Senate and House each adjourn independently, but they need the other house’s consent to adjourn. If the House wants to adjourn, the Senate is free to say “ok, see ya” and keep going about its business. The President’s power to force adjournment would only come into play if the Senate denied consent for the House to adjourn. And if Trump had to votes in the Senate to deny consent for the House to adjourn (which would obviously be a move to give Trump recess appointment power), then he would surely have the votes for the Senate to adjourn itself. I just don’t see how this strategy gets him anywhere.
I don’t think that’s correct, otherwise this makes no sense:
“in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;”
Art. II, sec. 3 only makes sense in reference to Art. I, Sec. 5, which requires that one house get the other houses’s consent if it wants to adjourn for more than three days: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”
That said, I did have the same thought as you – why would the President get the power to adjourn both houses, as opposed to the one house that actually wants to adjourn? But I think it makes sense when you consider that the point of the consent requirement is to get the houses to coordinate so that one house adjourning does not upset the flow of business between the houses. If the houses can’t work that out, then the president adjourning one house might not solve the problem – rather adjournment of both houses (and a designated return date) might be necessary to get them on the same schedule.
How does such a blatant and bald-faced scheme to avoid the advise and consent role of the Senate get applauded by anyone, never mind a constitutional law professor like Blackman? Are the fringes of the parties so outcome-oriented and transactional that they view the Constitution as evil, not good?
Where do you see this “applauded” by anyone? This is a purely academic question posed by (no surprise) an academic.
Yes, purely academic…
Purely academic? Didn’t Trump make it a litmus test of sorts that the Senate Maj Leader be willing to make recess appointments to get his support? And Scott immediately said yes, and Thune said ‘they will consider all options, including recess appointments…”
I don’t think its purely academic. I think its preemptive…Trump knows some of his picks are widely unqualified for the positions they are seeking and wouldn’t make it through a confirmation process…or the confirmation process would be embarrassing for the nominee and the GOP in general… so they want to avoid it.
Pathetic really. But entirely expected.
Nelson, you do realize that Noel Canning was a case that arose because President Obama used a “blatant and bald-faced scheme to avoid the advise and consent role of the Senate” to appoint 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board during a 3 day window when the Senate wasn’t meeting, and claimed it qualified as a recess that allowed him to make recess appoinments.
He lost 9-0.
I happen to think Scalia was right and only inter-session recesses should count, and the during argument is very convincing, but as Josh notes there may be a loophole.
Back then he thought it was good and proper for Obama to do the thing.
It’s (D)ifferent then, don’t you see? Now it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
I’m commenting on the outcome-oriented approach (and the abandoning of American principles) that such a scheme would require. It is even more cynical and dishonest as the average MAGA workaround. I don’t approve of it from anyone, so your whataboutism is even more idiotic than whataboutism usually is.
N, I read this as an academic ‘what if’ scenario. Not as advocacy for doing it and providing a road map on how. Inter vs intra session? What? I have to confess, I did not know there was a distinction like that, and that it mattered.
Let’s finish counting the votes (lol, can’t believe we still are). Then the EC can meet, and officially elect Pres Trump to be ’47’. And then Congress can certify the vote early next year. And then Pres Trump can be sworn in.
My point is, there is a lot between here and there. It was an interesting academic question.
Apparently, “American principles” were not an issue for you when Obama did it. Hard to complain about norms when the same thing was done a decade ago by someone else.
Apparently, you’re full of shit as usual.
“It is even more cynical and dishonest as the average MAGA workaround. I don’t approve of it from anyone, so your whataboutism is even more idiotic than whataboutism usually is.”
This country desperately needs AG Gaetz.
By Any Means Necessary.
God help us if that pedophile becomes AG.
Actually Gaetz has been investigated for what amounts to ephebophilia,
AKA normal male behavior, let me know when he shows up in a dress and heels
Is it normal to have your buddy in state govt use the DMV to make fake i.d.’s for your underage sex and cocaine parties? Maybe male behavior if Gaetz was a sophomore at Florida State Univ. Sitting member of Congress??? Speaker Johnson could maybe put a monitoring app on Gaetz’ phone so they can be accountability buddies. Gaetz apparently had a penchant for taking photos of the ladies in compromising positions and sharing them with colleagues on the house floor. As if paying for sex was somehow macho behavior.
Investigated you say? May as well have been charged, tried, and convicted, according to Democrats! An accusation is a finding of guilt. It is “Believe All Women,” taken to its logical conclusion.
You’re a fuckwit.
The one and only reason Gaetz and Hegseth are getting nods is that they are empty suits. They will just do whatever Trump directs them to do, and their total incompetence is designed to drive subordinates out.
The country doesn’t need any of that.
The Bureaucracy is killing civilization.
We need heroes like Gaetz and Hegseth. Humanity is at stake.
I have no objection to whatever your politics are here but this is really embarrassing. Like it’s possible to say “hey I like these guys’ politics and that they’re willing to support the president who I like and I think they’re the right guys for the job” without pretending they’re heroes. And it’s okay to say that you think America is in a really bad place and radical correction is needed to get things back on track, but if you really think the confirmation — or not — of Matt Gaetz as attorney general is what saves or dooms humanity, you’re not mentally well.
Like it is possible to be normal.
Is Gabbard an empty suit, too?
No; she’s just an unhinged person of dubious loyalty to the country.
Just MTG without the “bleached blond bad built butch body.”
Spoken like a rapid neocon.
Projections a Bee-otch
If not, the question is what the suit is full of.
Better we should have had an empty pantsuit like Harris?
Well I agree on Gaetz, he’s never been anything more than a backbench bomb thrower.
Hegseth was a major in the Minnesota National Guard and a combat veteran, he also graduated from Princeton and worked for Bear Sterns. I don’t know much about him but he deserves a chance.
If being a Sergeant Major in the Minnesota National guard qualifies you to be VP, then Major should be enough for Secretary of Defense.
Being in the military does not have anything to do with the qualifications for VP, but you are being disingenuous so whatever.
One of the many reasons we choose Admirals and Generals to server as Secretary of Defense is because they have the experience in leading extremely large amounts of people, and know what resources such decisions require.
A Major does not have that kind of experience.
We’ve had plenty of secretaries of defense who never held general or flag rank.
-Mark Esper left the military as a lieutenant colonel.
-Ash Carter didn’t serve in the military
-Chuck Hagel left as a sergeant
-Leon Panetta left as a first lieutenant
-Robert Gates left as a first lieutenant
-Donald Rumsfeld left as a (navy) captain
-William Cohen didn’t serve in the military
-William Perry left as a second lieutenant
-Les Aspin left as captain
-Dick Cheney didn’t serve in the military
That takes us back six administrations so I’ll leave it. But Hegseth’s military service seems fully consistent with what’s been good enough for his predecessors.
President Obama’s Secretaries of Defense rose to the giddy heights of :
Lieutenant (Gates)
Lieutenant (Panetta)
Sergeant (Hagel)
Civilian (Carter)
Kaz, the President gets to pick his team. Consider, some professional sports teams or political parties have colorful and controversial players. And Congressman Gaetz is certainly, how shall I say, controversial and colorful (and occasionally entertaining).
Absent any blatantly disqualifying aspect to a nominee, they should be confirmed. Here is an early test for Senator Thune*. Can he deliver? 🙂
*And to think, Thune ran for the job of Majority Leader. He better stock up on booze and ibuprofen.
Commenter_XY : ” … controversial and colorful (and occasionally entertaining).”
Thus today’s Right. They see our nation’s governance as WWE-style entertainment. Doesn’t matter it’s a fraud. Doesn’t matter it’s a joke. As long as they can cheer themselves hoarse at the fake heroes and boo themselves red-faced at the fake villains, they’re entertained.
And that’s all they give a shit about….
Our nation’s governance has been WWE-style entertainment for a lot longer than Trump has been around, but there are some people who are just now realizing that rasslin’ isn’t real.
Absent any blatantly disqualifying aspect to a nominee, they should be confirmed.
Does being an idiot count?
Seriously, is Gaetz the best legal talent Trump can find to serve as AG?
No, being an idiot does not count, bernard11. Were that the case, DC would be an abandoned wasteland.
The President gets to pick his team. That is how it works. Your team would be different. My team would be different. President Trump is the man who ultimately has to deal with any fallout.
I just wanted to see Senator Thune’s face when he first realized that HE was the guy who has to get this nominee through, as Majority Leader. I would have been ROTFLMAO.
There is a long way between nomination and Senate confirmation.
The President gets to pick his team. That is how it works.
That is, in fact, not how the Constitution says it works.
You’re reading part of the Constitution out of the Constitution because you feel like it shouldn’t be a thing.
I’m not saying there should be a heavy hand, but your vibes don’t beat the Constitutional text.
The constitution says someone else picks the President’s cabinet?
Who? Some bureaucrat?
You can’t expect JHBHBE to be familiar with the Constitution. Or to be aware that the appointment process was the whole point of Blackman’s post.
No, being an idiot does not count, bernard11.
How about the DoJ investigative files on possible involvement in sex trafficking? His one-time close friend Joel Greenberg, pleaded guilty to charges including that and was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Gaetz would get access to those files, including the details of the women that have given information or testified to grand juries about him. That is seriously disturbing to me. How about you?
That is why there are confirmation hearings. It all gets aired out. If Congressman Gaetz goes down in flames, so be it; POTUS Trump would be the guy dealing with the fallout (no AG, political). It was their decision.
This does not see, consistent with your original position that the President gets to pick his team.
What lime are you drawing here where it’s legit or not for Congress to question the President’s choice?
The entire point of this post is a potential scheme to avoid having confirmation hearings.
Try to keep up.
You think Trump’s pronouns are they/their/them?
Ordinarily, Gaetz would be the sacrificial nominee– the one that the opposition gets to rule out. Then POTUS gets the remainder of his picks.
Hopefully that is true this time also
Ordinarily, Gaetz would be the sacrificial nominee– the one that the opposition gets to rule out. Then POTUS gets the remainder of his picks.
Except that this time, Trump has announced like 3 nominees to major national security roles that are highly problematic in addition to Gaetz. (Fox News weekend morning show host for SecDef, partisan hack Ratcliff for CIA director, Tulsi Gabbard, apologist for Putin and Assad as DNI)
Just because Gaetz is the most frightening of those 4, doesn’t mean the other three are okay.
XY,
I understand that being an idiot does not matter to many, including, possibly GOP Senators.
Does it matter to you? Is this appointment, among others, enough for you to say, “Well, that was an error of judgment by Trump. Let’s hope he does better in the future?”
bernard11, if you are asking what I personally think….Does it matter to me? No, not really. It is 11/14. Long way to go. Ask me again in January.
It is either the biggest troll of DC ever, or Pres-Elect Trump is dead-ass serious about dismantling the DC bureaucracy.
It is either the biggest troll of DC ever, or Pres-Elect Trump is dead-ass serious about dismantling the DC bureaucracy.
Oh, I think he is serious about dismantling everything in the bureaucracy that might not do exactly what he wants. That is why it is clear that he doesn’t just want loyalty, but fealty. (John Bolton is a turd, but he is right to use that word.)
It’ll be good experience before he goes to the Surpremes
Your side thinks billionaires who win elections while being outspent several to one are idiots, so excuse me if I don’t take your assessment of who’s an idiot very seriously.
Your side thinks billionaires who win elections while being outspent several to one are idiots,
I call for a fact check here. The only way spending in favor of Harris was “several to one” more than in favor of Trump is if you don’t include the so-called independent expenditures. Musk alone put down over $100 million into a pro-Trump SuperPAC he set up, right? Similar sums were given to pro-Trump organizations by other super-wealthy donors.
I had the same reaction when I read Brett’s comment, but the underlying position is just inane as well. I reiterate: since when did elections become IQ contests?
Hell, the GOP thinks that Biden was senile since (at least) 2020, and yet Biden clearly beat Trump that year. If a senile guy can do it, why can’t a stupid Trump do it? (Some people square that circle by inventing vast conspiracies to steal the election — raising the question of why they didn’t do the same in 2024 — but Brett is careful not to actually endorse those explicitly. I suspect Brett would instead say something about how the media was helping Biden in 2020 or something, but that’s no better; wasn’t the media anti-Trump in 2016 and 2024 too?)
The president does not get to pick his team. He gets to work with the senate to pick his team. I think the president is owed great deference for executive branch appointments, but he is not a king and doesn’t get to do what he wants.
People in thrall to a President also seem to forget that a President’s job is to execute the law, not to rule. Discretion in how the law is implemented doesn’t mean do whatever the fuck you want.
Well I do think Gaetz is blatantly disqualified, so there is that.
But I don’t think blatantly disqualified is, or ever has been the standard, the standard is 51 votes in the Senate.
After all Merrick Garland by no measure was blatantly disqualified from the Supreme Court, and I fully supported denying him a vote, or voting him down.
And actually I think the best course is for the Senate to schedule an early vote on Gaetz nomination, then decisively vote it down. No games, just make it clear how they feel.
I like that one = I don’t think blatantly disqualified is, or ever has been the standard, the standard is 51 votes in the Senate
Agree about just voting without fanfare and let the chips fall where they may.
Garland to Gaetz is apples vs oranges. Garland was a nominee for an entirely different branch of government (SCOTUS), not a part of Obama’s team. Gaetz is a member of the team, same branch. Not the same.
“After all Merrick Garland by no measure was blatantly disqualified from the Supreme Court, and I fully supported denying him a vote, or voting him down.”
I’m quite sure that everyone will regret my asking, but perhaps you can explain the stupidity behind your remark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination
Kazinski is saying that he thinks the senate was right to stop the Garland appointment, even though Garland wasn’t “blatantly disqualified” by any measure. (This doesn’t, of course, really speak to the issue of what the senate should do with a nominee who is blatantly disqualified,, as Gaetz.)
I think you might have misread Kazinski’s remark that you quoted. Garland, as Biden’s AG, has actually shown himself to be exactly the person many people had been describing him to be after Obama nominated him: a moderate that is not highly partisan. A partisan Democrat AG would have gone after Trump, seeking indictments for Jan. 6 probably before the impeachment trial was over. A partisan Dem AG wouldn’t have let the National Archives and FBI negotiate with Trump over the documents for over a year. The truth is that Garland was highly restrained and mostly avoided going after Trump as much as he could. The Trump fans that talk about the DoJ being weaponized against him are seeing the opposite of what was happening.
Hegseth is also a big fan of war criminals.
So am I, if that’s your definition of “War Criminal”, how about a real one, Dick Chaney, who supported what’s her name?
Frank
That’s unfair to Gaetz. He’s also a fellow hebephile. so he and Trump connect at a deeper level.
If there are prolonged hearing over Gaetz, his confirmation could take months. We will need to have an acting AG.
Considering what Gaetz will do, is it worth the fight for months?
One might say yes, if one believed the DOJ needed drastic changes enough. This is where Senator Thune proves himself. Or outs himself.
Why do they need any hearings?
They all know Gaetz, just vote and then send him home.
I remember Boris Johnson thought that if he prorogued Parliament he could do his job more easily. A court decided he couldn’t do that, as far as I can tell just making up a rule ad hoc.
Yes, Miller II involved substantial judicial creativity. But then, it concerned an issue that was smack dab in the middle of one of the most unwritten parts of the UK’s unwritten constitution.
1. I heard Trump would nominate his horse Incitatus as Attorney General. Imagine my letdown on hearing it was a less qualified nominee instead.
2. But seriously, probably some ancient Romans thought Caligula’s antics hilarious trolling fun at first. Then reality intervened. It’s never good when your country’s leader is mentally ill – particularly when he’s also showing signs of accelerating cognitive decay.
3. I saw Ken Paxton’s name on an earlier list of AG candidates and thought that bizarrely appropriate. Why not have a criminal Attorney General with our criminal President? After all, we’re going to have a Reality-TV Secretary of Defense to go with our Reality-TV POTUS. Of course, that doesn’t change with Gaetz.
4. I don’t know whether Putin invested more in his boy Trump than Mueller documented. But even if he did, the Russian leader is getting his money’s worth. He couldn’t ask for better than a Secretary of Defense who’s barely managed anything larger than a platoon.
5. For the next four years our nation will be the laughingstock of the world.
I’m not sure that anybody’s laughing…
Side note: If the choices are Paxton and Gaetz, pick Gaetz.
If those are the choices, pick despair….
Those who joined the Noel Canning majority may very soon regret their choice.
Or, they will realize it was a good result overall, and not rest their judgment on how a Trump would act. No matter what way they decide, a norm breaker potentially finds a way to norm break.
The Matt Gaetz appointment as AG has probably killed any idea that either house will cooperate in Trump’s plan to use recess appointments to fill his cabinet.
I think both Johnson and Thune are appalled by the Gaetz pick.
It might just be a gambit so he can appoint Blackman, and then everyone can take a deep breath and relax over dodging the Gaetz bullet.
If we were speculating on VC picks for AG, Paul Cassell would certainly be the most plausible, but I actually wouldn’t mind Kerr, or Adler. EV is too open minded, and reluctant to fully commit himself to positions to be a good choice.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head.
If Trump thinks he’s going to get Gaetz confirmed, that’s pretty dumb, and even dumber if he actually wants him confirmed. It’s not that having a partisan hack AG is a bad thing at this particular moment – the most urgent thing to do at the DoJ is to get rid of the Nazgul infestation. Gentleman Jefferson Beauregard is not what is required.
The problem with Gaetz is that he’s an attack dog. What is required is an attack serpent. Trump needs someone much smarter and less obvious than Gaetz if he is to succeed in eradicating the Nazgul.
On the other hand, if Trump is just throwing a bone to the RINOs in the GOP Senate caucus, so that they can say “look, we’re moderates, we voted down Beria and settled for Dzerzhinsky instead ! ” then he’s giving them cover to vote for his other, interesting, picks.
So basically your problem with Matt Gaetz is that he isn’t evil enough? You literally want the big bad guy from Genesis to run the Justice Department?
No, he’s too dumb and too obvious. Need someone smarter and more devious. Someone like Eric Holder, but smarter. Holder was working with the Nazgul, not against them, which is much easier.
Nixon would be good, but I don’t think he’s available.
Richard Nixon is not available, but Walter Nixon is — a former federal district judge who was convicted of making false statements to a grand jury and was impeached and removed from office by the Senate.
Although at age 95 I doubt he would want the job.
There is no “Nazgul infestation.”
You are a gullible idiot who has been lied to. You are cheering on the destruction of democracy.
I’m marking this as a win for Lee by baiting you into posting a refutation that there are Nazgul at the DOJ. Too funny
I think you’ve got it backwards. Johnson and Thune are so appalled that this recess scheme looks like an excellent way to avoid being on record voting for Gaetz.
They will not vote no on Gaetz – Trump would have them removed from their leadership positions.
How? If there are enough votes in the senate to do that, there are enough votes to just confirm these nominees!
It only takes something like 27 senators to knock Thune out of the majority leader position. It takes 51 senators to approve Gaetz.
And again, they’d rather not vote on anything controversial if they can avoid it.
Wouldn’t it take 51 Senators to allow a recess?
Given that the Republicans will control the Senate, I fail to see the need for this. The Republican majority should just agree to fast track review and a vote. No reason it can’t be done within two weeks of the inauguration.
Because a handful of Republican senators won’t vote for Gaetz. Or at the very least, don’t want to go on record voting for Gaetz.
Blackman just wants to skip directly to the Constitutional crisis, eh?
Man, he’s going to sink to *depths* these next few years.
And then there’s Calabresi….
I was just thinking earlier today about his strange silence.
None of this makes any sense. The President can only adjourn the Congress if the two houses disagree on when to recess. Why would they disagree? The underlying premise here seems to be the houses would concoct a phony “disagreement” on when to recess, giving Trump the ability to force them to recess. But why would they bother to do that when they could simply agree to recess (or not recess)? I see Congress as maintaining all the decision power either way on when and if to recess, which is the principle that underlies Noel Canning.
I may be missing the point, but is it not that Trump only needs the House to agree with him ? So if the Senate is sniffy about its advice and consent prerogative, Trump plus House gets to trump the Senate and force a recess. This allows Susan Collins to collapse on the Senate floor and be revived with smelling salts, thus giving her a shot a re-election in Maine.
The theory is that the House may be more MAGA than the Senate.
That makes some sense, I guess, but if the “plan”, which I doubt really exists, hinges on Speaker “MAGA Mike” Johnson, then there’s virtually no chance of it actually happening.
Lee Moore : “The theory is that the House may be more MAGA than the Senate.”
But are they more suicidal? President-elect just over a week and already Trump is acting like a freak. He’s already humiliating voters who convinced themselves he could behave rationally. Sure, MAGA is in it for pro-wrestling-grade antics, but the deciding factor in his election was normal people who want normalcy.
Every fresh bit of brat child pranks accelerates Trump towards lame duck status. If GOP politicians see a bloodbath on the horizon you’ll see their spines start to stiffen. Suddenly they’ll decide buffoonery isn’t so funny anymore.
You are indeed missing the point. As noted in the excerpts above, the president has the power to adjourn Congress only “in Case of Disagreement between [the two houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment”. So if a majority of the senate doesn’t like this plan, all they have to do is agree that the House can adjourn when it asks to, and it’s over. There’s no recess, no appointees, and Trump is in a worse place than when he started (having squandered political capital on this state and alienated the senators whose support he’d presumably like).
Not that I’d put it past Trump to try something dumb and pointless, but I don’t even see the possibility of a percentage here. It would be one thing if he were keeping his nominees secret, so he could try to strongarm the senate into going along sight-unseen and thus sneak the Matt Gaetzes through. But publicly announcing them as he’s been doing seems like it kills any conceivable utility that this proposal might have.
But the House isn’t just asking to adjourn itself. From Whelan’s first linked article above — see step 1:
Right, but this is still too cute. The only power the House and Senate have vis-a-vi each other is to grant or without consent when the other house wants to adjourn. See Art. I, Sec. 5. The House can run to the President if it wants to adjourn and the Senate won’t let it (i.e. a “Disagreement” at issue in Art. II, Sec. 3). But if the House demands that the Senate adjourn and the Senate refuses, that doesn’t create a “Disagreement” within the scope of Art. II, Sec. 3–the House has no authority to tell the Senate to adjourn. The galaxy-brained idea seems to be to combine something the House can do (request consent to adjourn) with something the House can’t do (demand that the Senate adjourn) into one resolution, but the House can’t just aggrandize its constitutional power through a parliamentary maneuver.
I agree with your analysis, and with Noscitur’s, however ……
….just for fun. Literally, the House can have a Disagreement with me about the time I go on vacation. It just doesn’t have any authority over the time I go on vacation (I hope.) So ignoring the context given by Article I Section 5, there can, literally, be an Article II Section 5 Disagreement between House and Senate about the time of the Senate adjourning.
So – again for just for fun – suppose Trump were to go ahead and appoint Gaetz in a “Recess” so created. Who would have standing to challenge the appointment and when ? The Noel Canning appointments got challenged when the appointees did something to affect Noel Canning. The Jack Smith appointment got challenged when Jack Smith did something to Trump. I vaguely recall various chatter at the time of the Jack Smith thing saying that the actions of an apparently appointed Officer, later discovered to have been invalidly appointed, might still be legally valid. Also that grand jury indictments might be valid notwithstanding the argued invalidity of Jack Smith’s appointment. And so on.
So might it not depend on what Gaetz does and how ? So suppose he wants to fire 11 top DoJ officials. He fires them. They go to court saying he doesn’t have that authority. (Ignore any other grounds for challenge.) The fired employees presumably have standing to challenge. But what if Gaetz instructs the (properly appointed) Deputy AG to fire them, and they’re fired. The Deputy accepts Gaetz’s authority to instruct him, but the fired employees now have to argue that the Deputy doesn’t have the authority to fire them.
Just for fun, of course. No way to run an actual railroad.
Lee Moore : “I may be missing the point….”
Ya think? There’s no 4D chess involved here. This is adolescent trolling at the junior high school level. Picture Musk and Trump as fourteen year old boys giggling over their mischief and you get the picture. Because that’s their sum achievement, maturity-wise.
It is perhaps worth noting that Prof. Blackman’s framing obscures the fact that Ed Whelan calls this proposal, which he says he’s “hearing through the grapevine” may be under consideration, “bonkers”, and that he calls on Congress’s republican leaders to stop it if it happens.
“Bonkers” seems right—what exactly is this supposed to accomplish even if it works? The plan, per Whelan, is to have one house seek the other house’s to adjourn and have the other house deny it, so as to allow the president to invoke that Article II authority. But that would mean that the president would need support for this plan in both houses. If he had that support for these nominees (whom he’s publicly announcing two months ahead of time), wouldn’t it be both easier and better to just have the senate confirm them quickly? What’s would resorting to this scheme actually accomplish that would justify its being more difficult, limiting the time the appointees could serve, creating legal challenges to their authority that will last longer than their tenure in office, and preventing Congress from taking any legislative action and the beginning of the administration?
I think you are missing something.
The Republican senators see holding a vote on someone like Gaetz as a lose-lose situation. It starts with Democrats getting to question Gaetz on national TV, which is not going to make anybody look good. Then if they vote no, they’re instantly on Trump’s enemies list and get primaried next election. If they vote yes they’ll have to explain why and there’s no answer that isn’t a humiliating confession of being a cowardly flunky.
So for them, the better option is to say that Trump outsmarted them with the little-known Blackman-Obama Maneuver. They can even spin it as “we tried to stay in session but he adjourned us.”
I disagree. It is in the interests of Republican Senators with loseable seats to vote down one or two of Trump’s nominees, to show their bipartisan reasonableness. It’s only dangerous if Trump really really really wants them confirmed. As I speculate above, I think Gaetz may well be a deliberate burnt offering by Trump.
I note – with some surprise – though that on Polymarket Gaetz is 40-60 to be confirmed. I think 40 is too high. Maybe 20.
I don’t see any universe in which voting to go along with this scheme (which again, the senate would have to do) would be less politically damaging than voting to confirm Matt Gaetz: since it’s now publicly known that going along with it would mean his appointment, voting for it is tantamount to not only voting for him, but doing so in an underhanded, dishonest, and legally-dubious way. So even if you accept that Trump thinks it’s really important for Gaetz to be his attorney general (which would be a little weird, but hey, it’s Trump), it’s hard to see how trying this would get him any closer.
Not so sure, keep in mind that Democrats still get to vote.
I’m not a Democrat and don’t think their motives are pure. They could very easily decide that having a Gaetz to demonize is more to their advantage than getting someone who’ll do the same damage but quietly.
All they need is for a couple pro-Gaetz senators who resent their less-MAGA colleagues to go along. Which is sort of exactly what Gaetz did to bring down McCarthy.
If you think there are any Democrats in the senate who would be prepared to vote to go along with this plan, I’m not the one who’s missing something.
What’s would resorting to this scheme actually accomplish
Well, it would avoid those embarrassing hearings in which, may I remind you, Democratic Senators get to participate. (Maybe they get their act together this time.)
I suspect Gaetz will have sufficient difficulty with Senator Kennedy of Louisiana
There’s no requirement that the senate hold confirmation hearings. (Or, for that matter, to let witnesses or evidence be presented or allow the minority to participate if they do hold them.) If a majority of senators are on board (which, again, would be required for this plan to work), wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just put the nominations into the floor calendar than go through this charade?
Maybe they can avoid the hearings, but they can’t avoid a recorded vote on whether or not they supported Gaetz. Unless they go through the charade.
That “charade” as you impertinently call it, is each Senator’s God given opportunity to bloviate at great length, and in the folksiest of voices, and if lucky (or unlucky) to make the news on TV. It is a vital part of each Senator’s self image. Wash your mouth out.
For those of you saying this maneuver is unlikely, check out this:
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1856817761919356935
Manny, Moe, or Jack from Pep Boys would be an improvement over Eric Holder or Merrick Garfinkle
Frank
The people who have spent the last ten years reacting to every single innocuous utterance or action by Trump with unhinged hysteria are, shockingly, reacting with unhinged hysteria. They are emotionally and mentally unwell and getting worse. MSNBC going off the air would do wonders for this mental health crisis. Normal people are nonplussed by this.
Would not a straight reading of the words mean he could adjourn the session that he called, rather than any session at all
Various people (including me) note how both houses have to disagree to open up Trump’s power to adjourn the Senate.
The idea is that the Senate would not allow him to do it by going along with the House on the time of adjourn. Safe bet.
One argument to the contrary is that senators are sorta chickenshit (to quote someone) & will find some reason “on principle” to disagree with the House. They will let internal divisions or inaction to allow them to fail to decide on adjournment.
The result would be disagreement & Trump would have the power but the Senate would have an excuse on how it wasn’t “really” their fault. Senators would not have to go on record in opposition or support of the most problematic Cabinet picks.
That is a sort of “conspiratorial” argument of how this would work.