I am taking heat (which is fine, if not fun) on my position that the President was wrong to use the recess appointment power in the Bolton case.
Let me try one more time to make my most fundamental point, as it seems as if many of my critics seem to think that I am making a broad-based argument about recess appointments. I am not. Rather, I am taking about this specific instance.
It is my contention that there are times when taking the the fairly dramatic step of a recess appointment is not the right thing to do. It is a wholly cost/benefit argument (indeed, as long-time readers may note, I am big fan of cost/benefit calculations when it comes to political and policy moves). I thought Bush was right, for example, to grant a recess appointment to Bill Pryor to the Court of Appeals. The benefit far outweighed the political cost, and it ultimately paid off.
Given the nature of the position in question (UN Ambassador), I did not see the potential political cost as being worth the meager benefit of the Bolton appointment.
Not all nominations are created equal.
(Indeed, I would note a flaw in the basic argument of many who state that Bush was right. They will state something like “the UN Ambassador is not that important anyway.” If that is the case, then why in the world risk animosity with the Senate over this position? Indeed, if the argument that the position is unimportant, what’s the big deal about the recess appointment is an argument for the President capitulating in this case?).
August 2nd, 2024 at 9:46 am
I have not really formed an opinion on this one, but would like to ask a question about “risk[ing]animosity with the Senate.”
How will the Senate Democrats start showing this animosity? Will they begin filibustering a large number of appointments? Will they give speeches calling the administration a bunch of liars? Will they imply or simply state that the administration is pro-torture? Will they refuse to compromise with the President regarding social Security?
In other words, how precisely will Senate animosity to the President be any worse than what we’ve got right now?
August 2nd, 2024 at 10:13 am
A fair point. However, it is a point that assumes that we have hit rock bottom and I am not certain that that is the case. The question becomes does this fuel the one-upsmanship. Further, it is fuel for critics (who, yes, will criticize anyway, but why help them out?).
Case in point: John Roberts. We know that Schumer & Co. will criticize and vote against him, however, even they have been had to say nice things about him and it is clear that this will be a successful nomination.
Why not find someone who isn’t substantial opposition? What’s the harm in that? And aside from “Sticking it to the Dems” I am not cerain what the HUGE benefit of having Boltin in the position is at this point. That doesn’t seem to be sufficient reason to use an extraordinary tool.
August 2nd, 2024 at 10:14 am
I don’t know if you’re right or wrong about the wisdom of the appointment, but I think that the argument about creating animosity in the senate is a bit overwrought.
I doubt that the Democrats will be able to use this as a hook that will resonate with the public. It will more likely be another “distraction” to add to this
August 2nd, 2024 at 10:16 am
Further, I think that there is something to be said about the general political capital that is to be associated with looking “reasonable”. The Senate Dems weren’t reasonable over the Appeals Court nominees, and they eventually lost out. It seems to me that it would help the President’s genreral image, which is any President’s best tooll, to take what I think was a low-cost route ti looking reasonable.
August 2nd, 2024 at 10:45 am
Dr. Taylor,
All along I have been quite outspoken about my support for John Bolton. I think, however, you miss the benefit in your analysis.
If the United States is to remain in the UN (we are paying the lion’s share of the cost), then we need to have a very active role in reformation. Not having to continue playing the waiting game with the Senate, and being able to better influence how our share is spent, is clear benefit.
There is risk. On July 13th, I also questioned this Is It Time for Recess? My primary concern is: Can the administration manage public perception (PR) battle that will ensue with a recess appointment? And on top of that what does it do to the fight over the Supreme Court?
I think yes, they can manage and this will not change the SCOTUS fight.
This could embolden the lefties like Durbin and Schumer. But they are already there. And the Dems do not have enough votes to block confirmation. In the case of John Roberts, they have little to work with. So, in my mind there is, risk but little cost?
So we have benefit and risk, but not necessarily cost. Risk is something you manage as a part of hopefully minimizing cost. I think Rove has this clearly in his sights.
I like the move.
August 2nd, 2024 at 10:51 am
I simply do not see how only John Bolton can accomplish this feat. When did he become the indispensable man?
It does not follow logically nor practically.
August 2nd, 2024 at 12:22 pm
Obvously other people could accomplish what Mr. Bolton has been asked. However, others are not the Presidents choice.
The benefit I see, is less about John Bolton and more about timing.
1) The Senate has shown zero intention of even allowing a vote. A vote which he would likely win and would end in confirmation.
2) We achieve few of our goals in reformation, without a UN Ambassador.
Finally, by your answer, you indicate you question John Bolton in the role. I can accept that, but that is a very different discussion than that of a reccess appointment.
August 2nd, 2024 at 12:30 pm
I have never neem arguing about recess appointments per se. Rather, I have been arguing that this particular recess appointment was a better route than simply submitting a different name–especially given the revelations last week that Bolton may not have been fully forthcoming in his testimony.
August 2nd, 2024 at 12:47 pm
Now I understand, you are just not a strong supporter of Bolton. I can accept that. That is enough reason to question the recess appointment.
August 2nd, 2024 at 2:41 pm
Dean wrote: “Finally, by your answer, you indicate you question John Bolton in the role. I can accept that, but that is a very different discussion than that of a reccess appointment. ”
Here’s why a recess appointment for a role like this is a bad idea: from the day John Bolton took office, his fellow ambassadors and his staff knew his was a time-limited position. They know that come January 2024, Bolton is gone unless he is reappointed and gains Senate approval. And given the apparent waning strength of this administration in the eyes of the public, Bolton winning confirmation from the Senate in 18 months is surely less likely than winning it now. So, we have in essence a lame duck UN ambassador.
Now, please explain why Bill Clinton committed a “a flagrant abuse of power” and showed “contempt for Congress and the Constitution”, according to Republican Senator James Imhofe of Oklahoma, by appointing James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg in 1999, but George Bush has done neither in appointing Bolton.
August 2nd, 2024 at 3:41 pm
[...] ems to be taking some heat for his stand on the Bolton nomination/recess appointment. See here and here. For the record, I agree with almost everything Steven says in these posts, except for the fact [...]
August 2nd, 2024 at 8:48 pm
— “However, it is a point that assumes that we have hit rock bottom and I am not certain that that is the case. The question becomes does this fuel the one-upsmanship. Further, it is fuel for critics (who, yes, will criticize anyway, but why help them out?).” —
Fair question.
August 3rd, 2024 at 7:45 pm
“Here’s why a recess appointment for a role like this is a bad idea: from the day John Bolton took office, his fellow ambassadors and his staff knew his was a time-limited position. They know that come January 2024, Bolton is gone unless he is reappointed and gains Senate approval. And given the apparent waning strength of this administration in the eyes of the public, Bolton winning confirmation from the Senate in 18 months is surely less likely than winning it now. So, we have in essence a lame duck UN ambassador.”
Problem with this analysis is that ANYBODY a US president appoints in his second term is, by definition, a lame duck. Even if he picked someone that the Democrats do not object to strongly enough to filibuster, that person would only serve a little over a year longer than Bolton, which is peanuts compared to to the length of time that most of these UN guys serve.
“Now, please explain why Bill Clinton committed a “a flagrant abuse of powerâ€? and showed “contempt for Congress and the Constitutionâ€?, according to Republican Senator James Imhofe of Oklahoma, by appointing James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg in 1999, but George Bush has done neither in appointing Bolton.”
Please repeat after me: A claim of hypocrisy, while perhaps a good attack on the character of the person engaged in it, is not a substitute for real argumentation on an issue. So, while you may have scored debating points on James Imhofe (assuming, of course, that Imhofe is in favor of the Bolton recess appointment, which you haven’t demonstrated), James Imhofe is utterly irrelevent to deciding whether a recess appointment of Bolton is a good idea.
Maybe the good Prof should add the “Brutus Effect” to his lexicon. It’s the idea that knee-jerk partisans seem to develop that simply pointing out where someone that is on the same side as their opponent may be a hypocrite on the issue at hand (or even any other issue, for that matter) is a persuasive argument that actually addresses the issue at hand.
August 3rd, 2024 at 8:49 pm
Terry,
You are quite correct: simply pointing out the inconsistency in others isn’t an argument in and of itself. However, there is a certain amount of saliency to the point here, given that the most fundamental part of the argument is “this is the guy that the President wants” and when another key element of the argument is “standing up the Democrats”. If those are to be deployed in this debate, then bringing up the inconsistency issues is valid, I would argue.
If the arugment was “Bolton is the right man for the job, indeed, the only man for the job, so the President had to do this” then I woudl concur that the hypocrisy card would be invalid. However, if you read most of the critiques of my position, they are mostly about the President’s desires and the fact that it was correct to tell the Democrats where to put their objections.