Johnson doesn't rule out use of recess appointments

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Axios

6 hours ago


House Speaker Mike Johnson said "there may be a function" to facilitate the use of recess appointments to speed up the confirmation of President-elect Trump's Cabinet nominees.

Why it matters: The process of adjourning the Senate to allow Trump to install his picks without congressional approval would mean the chamber would shirk its advice-and-consent role for cabinet confirmations.

The president-elect demanded ahead of the Senate Republican leader race — from which Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) emerged victorious — that any senator seeking the position must agree to recess appointments, "without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner."

Thune has expressed willingness to use the tool, saying "all options are on the table."

Driving the news: Johnson did not rule out the use of recess appointments in a "Fox News Sunday" interview, saying, "We'll have to see how it plays out."

He pointed to "a very partisan atmosphere" in Washington that he believes could hinder the process of Senate confirmations, adding, "If this thing bogs down, it would be a great detriment ... to the American people."

If the Senate refuses to recess but the House does, Trump would have the power to adjourn the entire Congress, Axios' Ivana Saric reports.

The big picture: Congressional scholars have warned circumventing the traditional confirmation process would inflate executive power by sidestepping checks and balances.

Johnson says he's "sympathetic" to opposition to Trump's proposal, saying he's "very hopeful the Senate will do its job."

But he criticized "hyperbole" about the plan as an attempt to "distract the American people and to try to stall President Trump in delivering upon that mandate ... the people have given him."

Read more: https://www.axios.com/2024/11/17/johnson-trump-recess-appointment-senate-confirmation

---

The House of Representatives has ZERO to do with "appointments" and "confirmations". Their only involvement would potentially be to align their new Rules for the 119th Congress with the Senate's Rules, to allow for an actual "Recess" for "appointment purposes" (something that hasn't been done in 20 years).

[bluestarone]

1. The fucker is just waiting for his orders

God Dam i hate these fuckeras And people wonder why we think (KNOW) they CHEAT

[MadLinguist]

2. Not up to you, MiJo

Wave your little gavel around, pretend you talking to your pinky promise son, whatever you need to keep that placid pale face intact, but it just ain't your call. Ain't nobody asking you to open your mouth and opine, MiJo

[PSPS]

3. "delivering upon that mandate ... the people have given him" I guess 0.8% is a "mandate" now.

[underpants]

4. I'd just to go on record that I think the jet stream should continue

because I have as much impact on that as he does on the Senate.

[angrychair]

5. Article II Sec 3

The part about adjournment of Congress if House were to adjourn but the Senate refused it appears to give the president the power to adjourn Congress and restart it when he sees "proper"

convene both Houses, or either of them, and 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;

So does that mean what it sounds like? That the president can close Congress and just not reopen it? That seems insane. Why would they give a president that kind of power? It would leave Congress powerless.vthry couldn't even impeach him because they aren't in session.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. I have seen some other reports citing that section

And the fuller section is below with a critical criteria highlighted -

Article II

Section 3.

(snip)

he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and 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;

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

In the above situation "extraordinary" tended to associate with declarations of war or some other calamity.

But one could bring up a more practical reason, which was probably more frequent in the centuries past - i.e., issues with transportation to the U.S. Capitol, from remote states (not even counting weather delays).

So for example, if one Chamber didn't have a quorum of members present to vote on a Recess or Adjournment when the other Chamber wanted to and was ready to do so, but couldn't (because both need to agree to do it at the same time), then the President could step in and do it for them.

I.e., that provision should NOT be something assumed to have been included there to "game the system" and jam in nominees.

Plus another question might be the terminology between "Recess" and "Adjournment", where the latter is usually done at the end of a Calendar year or sometimes during a summer break. I think there is something about "10 days before the end of the year" (which corresponds to the "pocket veto" timeframe) and/or at the end of a Congressional Session". I.e., it has more "finality" to it, whereas "Recess" is more a temporary thing.

[angrychair]

11. Thank you for the info

Really appreciate that. Going to do some more reading 😊

[ZonkerHarris]

6. They won the House, Senate and White House AND they STILL NEED TO CHEAT!

[slightlv]

8. Uh...

I.e., that provision should NOT be something assumed to have been included there to "game the system" and jam in nominees.

But it will be.... count on it.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. Recess appointments declare war on Trump's own Republican majority

Power grab.

[travelingthrulife]

10. Of course he doesn't. He's a bad person.