Will Obama make a Recess appointment to fill the SC Vacancy?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

According to multiple news sources Obama has a small window to appoint someone to the SC, without them having to be approved by Senate, as the Senate is in recess until the 22end. Will Obama take advantage of this opportunity.   

I could see him doing  this as the GOP senate Caucus  appears to have  effectively closed the door until after the election on appointing some one to the SC. Obama could say in doing so he is simply ensuring the court is operating in the most effective way possible, as well an appointment now most likely is temporary as their term would expire in January of next year, and a new President might just nominate someone else in January (a temporary appointment might be accepted by the public, without much backlash). An recess appointment might look even better if they were considered well respected by all sides and or moderate as well.

[YaBoyNY]

I hope he does.

The Republican salt could sustain life for the next ten years.

[Zache]

According to Wikipedia, recess appointments last to the end of Congress's next session. That would be January 2018, right?

Anyway I think McConnell actually wants Obama to do this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

According to Wikipedia, recess appointments last to the end of Congress's next session. That would be January 2018, right?

Anyway I think McConnell actually wants Obama to do this.

Assuming that Congress doesn't change its schedule, it would be until the end of the first session of the next Congress, which indeed would be January 2018.  However, if Obama tried a recess appointment, it would be within the power of this Congress when it reconvenes on February 22 to immediately end the second session, start and then end a third session, and then begin a fourth session. Nothing in the Constitution says how long a session is, only that congress has to have at least one in each year.  The recess power clause is one that needs to be revisited as both Congresses and Presidents have acted to make a mockery of what it was intended to be.

[Bacon King]

According to Wikipedia, recess appointments last to the end of Congress's next session. That would be January 2018, right?

Anyway I think McConnell actually wants Obama to do this.

Assuming that Congress doesn't change its schedule, it would be until the end of the first session of the next Congress, which indeed would be January 2018.  However, if Obama tried a recess appointment, it would be within the power of this Congress when it reconvenes on February 22 to immediately end the second session, start and then end a third session, and then begin a fourth session. Nothing in the Constitution says how long a session is, only that congress has to have at least one in each year.  The recess power clause is one that needs to be revisited as both Congresses and Presidents have acted to make a mockery of what it was intended to be.

But for Congress to prematurely end their session, they'd have to give Obama another window where he could just make another recess appointment, no?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

According to Wikipedia, recess appointments last to the end of Congress's next session. That would be January 2018, right?

Anyway I think McConnell actually wants Obama to do this.

Assuming that Congress doesn't change its schedule, it would be until the end of the first session of the next Congress, which indeed would be January 2018.  However, if Obama tried a recess appointment, it would be within the power of this Congress when it reconvenes on February 22 to immediately end the second session, start and then end a third session, and then begin a fourth session. Nothing in the Constitution says how long a session is, only that congress has to have at least one in each year.  The recess power clause is one that needs to be revisited as both Congresses and Presidents have acted to make a mockery of what it was intended to be.

But for Congress to prematurely end their session, they'd have to give Obama another window where he could just make another recess appointment, no?

They would be in recess for hours at most. The Supreme Court has ruled that appointments can only be made if the Recess is at least three days in length.

[Joe Republic]

They would be in recess for hours at most. The Supreme Court has ruled that appointments can only be made if the Recess is at least three days in length.

Ten days, actually.  Which hilariously enough, Scalia vehemently disagreed with.

'“The Court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates,” Scalia warned.'

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem with applying Scalia's originalism to the recess appointments clause is that like a lot of the constitution, it presumes that our virtuous republic will be governed in a nonpartisan manner. Parties were evil according to the Founders.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.  He's  crazy, not batsh**t insane.

[ag]

Doing this would be pure confronation, and would not achieve any identifiable long-term objective. No reason to do that whatsoever.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This would basically ensure a Republican win in November and possibly trigger a constitutional crisis.

[ag]

This would basically ensure a Republican win in November and possibly trigger a constitutional crisis.

Neither is, probably, true: the Senate is, actually, in recess right now, it seems (no constitutional issue, if the appointment happens tomorrow) and what it will ensure is extreme partisan acrimony, rather than necessarily a Republican win in November. But there is absolutely no reason to do it, in any case.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The term would end in January 2017 because that's when the new congress is seated rather than 2018.

[cinyc]

The term would end in January 2017 because that's when the new congress is seated rather than 2018.

There's an argument that the recess appointee's term could end sooner than that because all the Senate would have to do is vote to immediately declare a new session after they got back from recess, making the appointment void at that point.  I don't know if that argument holds water, but it has been surfacing around the Internet.

[Slander and/or Libel]

According to Wikipedia, recess appointments last to the end of Congress's next session. That would be January 2018, right?

Anyway I think McConnell actually wants Obama to do this.

Assuming that Congress doesn't change its schedule, it would be until the end of the first session of the next Congress, which indeed would be January 2018.  However, if Obama tried a recess appointment, it would be within the power of this Congress when it reconvenes on February 22 to immediately end the second session, start and then end a third session, and then begin a fourth session. Nothing in the Constitution says how long a session is, only that congress has to have at least one in each year.  The recess power clause is one that needs to be revisited as both Congresses and Presidents have acted to make a mockery of what it was intended to be.

I don't believe this is true. The 20th Amendment says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, they can have as many sessions as they want, as long as they all start on January 3.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

According to Wikipedia, recess appointments last to the end of Congress's next session. That would be January 2018, right?

Anyway I think McConnell actually wants Obama to do this.

Assuming that Congress doesn't change its schedule, it would be until the end of the first session of the next Congress, which indeed would be January 2018.  However, if Obama tried a recess appointment, it would be within the power of this Congress when it reconvenes on February 22 to immediately end the second session, start and then end a third session, and then begin a fourth session. Nothing in the Constitution says how long a session is, only that congress has to have at least one in each year.  The recess power clause is one that needs to be revisited as both Congresses and Presidents have acted to make a mockery of what it was intended to be.

I don't believe this is true. The 20th Amendment says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, they can have as many sessions as they want, as long as they all start on January 3.

You do know how to read complete sentences, don't you? Congress routinely moves the date back from January 3 when it falls on the weekend. Not only that, but back before the Congress remained in permanent session year round, it was routine to have more than two sessions, twice a Congress had five separate sessions. Granted, the last time there were more than two sessions was the 76th Congress in 1939-1941, but there's no Constitutional barrier to multiple sessions.

[Slander and/or Libel]

For purposes of your proposed scheme for Congress to reconvene, end its session and immediately start a new one, it seems to me that the words "by law" are important there, right? Doesn't that imply that such a decision has to go through the regular channels and be signed by the president?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Only if they want a January 3rd to be a day that was not the start of a session. Otherwise, determining what day will be the start of the new session is part of the adjournment resolution ending a session, and unless the two houses are unable to agree on which day they return, then the president has no role in that. See Article I Section 7 Clause 3.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I suppose I'm asking whether congress has ever adjourned sine die and then called itself back into session before 1/3, since 1933.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I suppose I'm asking whether congress has ever adjourned sine die and then called itself back into session before 1/3, since 1933.

  Other than changing the date from March 4 to January 3, the 20th Amendment didn't change that particular provision, but both the 75th and 76th Congresses did so post 20th Amendment.

[Slander and/or Libel]

From what I can tell, those extra sessions in the 75th and 76th were called by FDR, not by Congress itself.