Jennifer Loven reports for the AP (at AOL news):
President Bush named Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday, using a maneuver that allowed him to bypass Congress , where Democrats had derailed Fox’s nomination.
The appointment, made while lawmakers were out of town on spring break, prompted angry rebukes from Democrats, who said Bush’s action may even be illegal.
Bush feared that “Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation in the Foreign Relations Committee”, and withdrew the nomination. But yesterday, “with the Senate on a one-week break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.”
Democrats aren’t too happy with how Bush handled this. Senator John Kerry: “It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate.”
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. added: “This is really now taking the recess appointment vehicle and abusing this beyond anyone’s imagination.”
To me this is not as much about ‘does he have the right to do this’ as it is about what this means for his relationship with Congress. Bush seems to be longing for confrontation. He is not backing off from anything. If the Democrats accept a resolution re Iraq, he will simply veto it. If the Democrats do not want to confirm the appointment of a highly controversial figure, Bush uses a political trick to appoint that figure when Congress is not watching. Does he has the ‘right’ to do this? Perhaps so, yes. Was this rule meant to give the president a way of ignoring Congress so he can appoint whomever he wishes? Probably not, no.
Although, is it legal? Mary Ann Akers explains how the Democrats will try to fight this appointment, what their focus will be:
To fight the Fox appointment, Democrats are questioning the Bush administration’s plan to have Fox serve in a voluntary capacity — receiving no pay for his duties as ambassador. This is an important legal technicality, as federal law prohibits “payment of services” for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it.
So as long as Fox — a multi-millionaire — agreed not to sue the Bush administration later for not paying him, the White House would be comfortable with giving him an unpaid, “voluntary service” recess appointment as ambassador to Belgium.
But here’s the rub that makes Democrats view Bush’s recess appointment of Fox as a major-league no-no: Federal law prohibits “voluntary service” in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. That’s how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress, interprets the law.
Reactions from across the blogosphere:
Ron Chusid: “George Bush still does not get the fact that this is a democracy and that there are other co-equal branches of government.”
Bob Geiger: “And Senator Dodd said it all about the appointment that will have many people wondering if the head Swift Boat Slimeball, John O’Neill, isn’t next in line to be rewarded for giving Bush four more years with which to trash our country.”
Cernig (NewsHog): “I can’t help but notice that the Bush regime seems to be getting more and more confrontational with Congress, on every issue they are afforded the opportunity. They obviously relish the prospect of a knock-down, drag-out constitutional crisis over the whole concept of “executive” power, war powers and the Imperial Presidency.”
Sister Toldjah: “This is just one more in a long list of things you and other clueless, undermining Democrats have falsely accused the President of doing to make it look like what he’s done is a criminal offense when it’s actually something he has the right to do PER the US Constitution. Shame on you both. Again.”
Down with Tyranny: “George Bush is a scoundrel and a lowlife.”
Red State: “Good job Mr. President!”
Blue Crab Boulevard: “The Democrats have been abusing the hell out of the nomination process for a long time. A president has a right – regardless of what party he is from – to have the people he wants serving in his administration. In years past, the Senate might give a nominee a hard time, but they very seldom rejected them out of hand. It has become commonplace lately – and that is going to come back around in that big, old karmic wheel.”
H/t Dr. Estes.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.