Adopt A Box O’ Docs Part III: Roberts Questions An Appointment (Not Really)
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/Box47JGRRecessAppointments5.pdf
This is a most interesting box of documents concerning Judge Roberts. Not because It is our third one covered, thus far, but because there is some "controversy" involved here. That being the fact that Roberts questions whether or not the president has the right to replace a member of the Export-Import Bank during such a short recess. At first, it is supposed that the recess lasted only eighteen days. It is later determined that the official time of recess was only fourteen days.
For those missing the controversy, in our previous post, we stated that Roberts argued that a "time frame" during a Senate recess was irrelevant. Sen. Byrd was requesting that the president curb his recess appointments during one month. This is a preposterous notion that Roberts dismissed easily. However, it is contended by Herman Marcuse on page 4 of the pdf file that Judge Roberts is making a similar argument.
Mr. Marcuse states that Judge Roberts questioned whether or not the president could make a recess appointment of two people that were slated to have their terms terminated on Jan. 20th on the day before the Senate was scheduled to reconvene. This is nothing like the argument made by Sen. Byrd. Judge Roberts merely questioned the timing of the appointment, as the Senate was slated to reconvene on the day in question. The time frame, which is brought up on a few occasions by Mr. Marcuse is entirely irrelevent.
Marcie is correct, and based on what Judge Roberts is on record about, he understands this. He knows that three-plus days are required for the Senate to be in recess, with the approval of the House, as per the Constitution. "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." (Art. I, Section 5, Clause 4) His contention, as she pointed out above, is not the length of time, but rather the timing of the decision.
Mr. Marcuse is quick to render a decision regarding this point of contention. His interpretation was that it is a risk, however, no more risky that the announcement of the appointment before noon of the day the Senate reconvenes. Roberts recommended that nominations like this—one being so close to the deadline of the Senate’s return from recess—be made in a more timely manner.
The Democrats will surely grasp onto the idea that Roberts was contradicting himself with this recess appointment situation; contradictory to what he stated regarding Sen. Byrd’s request. It isn’t. It is right in line with his thinking. He is not questioning the president’s authority to make a recess appointment, but he is merely pointing out the timing of the move. His contention to the move is obviously one that reflects the opinion that there’s no reason to make such an appointment if the Senate is about to reconvene.
Mr. Marcuse points out, though, that the Export-Import bank made a point that "extended vacancies on its board would cause serious problems." As Mr. Marcuse is speaking on behalf of the president, one must assume that he is correct. He also concedes that he agrees with Roberts’ protest. That these sort of recess appointments should be avoided, but "what must be done, must be done."
As I stated above, the only slim, feeble contention the Democrats may have over this is they may manipulate the actual information, and present Roberts as contradicting his earlier argument. This could not be further from the truth. Roberts was questioning the timing of the appointment, not whether the president had the ability to do so, or the amount of time between sessions of the Senate. Roberts, it seems, was attempting to protect the White House from any possible flak it may have received over an appointment made on the day the Senate was slated to reconvene. The Senate was slated to reconvene on 21 January 1985. The White House made the appointment at 9:30 a.m. on the 21st. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the move, and Roberts was not contending that it was.
The Bunny & Publius II
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/Box47JGRRecessAppointments5.pdf
This is a most interesting box of documents concerning Judge Roberts. Not because It is our third one covered, thus far, but because there is some "controversy" involved here. That being the fact that Roberts questions whether or not the president has the right to replace a member of the Export-Import Bank during such a short recess. At first, it is supposed that the recess lasted only eighteen days. It is later determined that the official time of recess was only fourteen days.
For those missing the controversy, in our previous post, we stated that Roberts argued that a "time frame" during a Senate recess was irrelevant. Sen. Byrd was requesting that the president curb his recess appointments during one month. This is a preposterous notion that Roberts dismissed easily. However, it is contended by Herman Marcuse on page 4 of the pdf file that Judge Roberts is making a similar argument.
Mr. Marcuse states that Judge Roberts questioned whether or not the president could make a recess appointment of two people that were slated to have their terms terminated on Jan. 20th on the day before the Senate was scheduled to reconvene. This is nothing like the argument made by Sen. Byrd. Judge Roberts merely questioned the timing of the appointment, as the Senate was slated to reconvene on the day in question. The time frame, which is brought up on a few occasions by Mr. Marcuse is entirely irrelevent.
Marcie is correct, and based on what Judge Roberts is on record about, he understands this. He knows that three-plus days are required for the Senate to be in recess, with the approval of the House, as per the Constitution. "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." (Art. I, Section 5, Clause 4) His contention, as she pointed out above, is not the length of time, but rather the timing of the decision.
Mr. Marcuse is quick to render a decision regarding this point of contention. His interpretation was that it is a risk, however, no more risky that the announcement of the appointment before noon of the day the Senate reconvenes. Roberts recommended that nominations like this—one being so close to the deadline of the Senate’s return from recess—be made in a more timely manner.
The Democrats will surely grasp onto the idea that Roberts was contradicting himself with this recess appointment situation; contradictory to what he stated regarding Sen. Byrd’s request. It isn’t. It is right in line with his thinking. He is not questioning the president’s authority to make a recess appointment, but he is merely pointing out the timing of the move. His contention to the move is obviously one that reflects the opinion that there’s no reason to make such an appointment if the Senate is about to reconvene.
Mr. Marcuse points out, though, that the Export-Import bank made a point that "extended vacancies on its board would cause serious problems." As Mr. Marcuse is speaking on behalf of the president, one must assume that he is correct. He also concedes that he agrees with Roberts’ protest. That these sort of recess appointments should be avoided, but "what must be done, must be done."
As I stated above, the only slim, feeble contention the Democrats may have over this is they may manipulate the actual information, and present Roberts as contradicting his earlier argument. This could not be further from the truth. Roberts was questioning the timing of the appointment, not whether the president had the ability to do so, or the amount of time between sessions of the Senate. Roberts, it seems, was attempting to protect the White House from any possible flak it may have received over an appointment made on the day the Senate was slated to reconvene. The Senate was slated to reconvene on 21 January 1985. The White House made the appointment at 9:30 a.m. on the 21st. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the move, and Roberts was not contending that it was.
The Bunny & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:23 PM
2 Comments:
I can't see how you don't see the contradiction. Both of these issues are about timing. Roberts completely contradicts his opinion regarding the Byrd argument.
Byrd asked that no appointments be made during the month of August. Roberts states that a window, as small as 14 days is too short a time for a recess appointee. It shows a partisan move to completely bypass the Senate.
I just can't believe that you don't see this. You believe yourself to be high and mighty regarding the aspects of law and order, yet you don't see that in one instance Reagan was usurping the authority of the Senate, and on the other, he was going to, and Roberts sided with the Democrats.
This guy sucks.
David in Miami, Florida
David,
Please tell me you're not that naive in the assessment provided. Both of them did a fine job of explaining the position that Roberts took regarding this particular issue.
The issue is not the time frame, as they stated at least twice. The issue that Roberts brought up was the timing regarding the date the appointment was made--that being the day the Senate reconvened. That is the only "timing" issue Roberts brought up.
Pay attention David, and learn the intricasies of your two poster. I'll bet you cash money they know more than you about matters regarding Roberts, and the judiciary as a whole.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home