Recess Appointments

Yep, in this case, the consequence is to substantially weaken checks-and-balances.

 

They sure do. And a consequence of this one is going to be a cesspool of bureaucratic incompetence and corruption when Trump gets all his people installed without any vetting.

 

Like the republicans did with Merrick Garland, the appointee for Obama SCOTUS? You can't wait two weeks to follow our system of checks and balances?

Is anyone not now seeing the detriment of electing a "businessman" as president? What kind of government does a corporation have, if you were to assign one to it?

 

isn't that the way it works when a dem is President and the dems control the Senate

 

Trump has been very upfront that he does not support the 2025 project and you know it
The Presidential Cabinet is appointed and it is HIS choice who he picks. y'all need to get off the dictatorship crap

 

Trump was apparently critical of parts of it, though it is a voluminous document and I'm not sure if Trump identified which parts he likes versus does not like. Perhaps Bannon and Walsh are just trolling but if not, they seem to think it is a core agenda item.

MAGA says Project 2025 'is the agenda'

Project 2025 is actually "the agenda," a prominent MAGA figure has said, despite Donald Trump repeatedly denying any connection with it during the election campaign.

And ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon has strongly endorsed the comment by conservative political commentator Matt Walsh, who said on X, formerly Twitter: "Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda." Walsh's post had 5.9 million views and 6,800 reposts.

Project 2025, a manifesto which was created by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president, has been strongly criticized by many across the political spectrum including Trump himself for some of its proposals which include an overhaul of federal government and federal policies that target the use of abortion pills.

Trump has said he has no associations with it multiple times, calling some of the ideas "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal" in July, but Democrats have pushed back on this, saying many of the President-elect's former aides are leading the project.

 

Since Trump is — and always has been — a firehose of lies and nonsense, I’ll believe he’s not following the project 2025 playbook when I see it. Trump always refuses to give specifics and details on his proposed policies because he’s either afraid it will be seen as unpopular and used against him, or he’s too dumb to understand them, or both…

 

Well I don't recall an incoming Dem president telling prospective Dem senate majority leaders to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by promising to allow recess appointments by putting the Senate in recess. But maybe you can find a link where that has happened from a Dem president.

 

Isn’t Trumps name in it over 300 times? Hell, JD Vance wrote the forward. P. T. Barnum was right a million times over. LOL

 

It’s not really a “historical norm” - pro forma sessions to try to keep the Senate from ever going into recess are largely a very recent (ie-post 2000) phenomenon.

Harry Reid started doing them every four days in 2007-08 to keep W. from making recess judicial appointments during the last two years of his term because the tradition was that presidents wouldn’t make recess appointments during brief (sub-10 day) recesses.

Boehner then refused to let the House consent to the Senate recessing for longer than three days under Obama to return the favor, but Obama tried to appoint people between the pro forma sessions. Those attempted Obama appointments got you the court opinion on recess appointments (that they can happen during intra-session recesses, but pro forma sessions do suffice to keep Congress in session).

All in all, this seems to be a big kerfuffle over nothing - typically when you see pro forma sessions to block recess appointments is when at least one chamber is held by a different party than the president. With the House, Senate, and White House all being Republican, I wouldn’t have expected to see pro forma sessions in the first place.

 

I'm not sure you understand the issue. Trump's demanding recess appointments, not pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments.

 

Repubs control the senate. It's up to them to approve Trump's nominations. Why would they need to intentionally do recess appointments? And why would Trump be demanding it?

 

The only thing that keeps recess appointments from being regularly possible are pro forma sessions - without them, the senate goes into recess anytime it breaks for more than 10 days. Clinton and W. both made hundreds of recess appointments, they’ve just become less common recently. And that’s because, since Reid started holding pro forma sessions at the end of W.’s second term to block recess judicial appointments, pro forma sessions have been used essentially any time the House and Senate are split (because a recess of longer than three days requires the concurrence of the other house).

My point was there’s no reason why a party would be holding pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by a president of their own party in the first place, so it’s a largely meaningless demand here.