Republicans reacted angrily after President Obama installed four people in various federal positions with recess appointments, taking an end run around the U.S. Senate on a new consumer financial watchdog and three seats on the National Labor Relations Board.
"This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department," said Speaker John Boehner.
"The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our constitution," Boehner added in a written statement.
The White House was having none of that, saying that Congress has not really been in session - despite quick "pro-forma" meetings every few days - and so recess appointments were fully legal.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One that "the President's counsel has determined that the Senate has been in recess for weeks and will be in recess for weeks."
"The constitutional authority the President has is very clear," Carney argued. "The fact of the matter is the Senate has been in recess and will continue to be in recess."
For a quick second, let's step aside from the legal wrangling over whether the Senate is really in recess or not, as the Constitution does give Presidents the power to make recess appointments.
But, both parties in the Congress have long agreed that unless the Senate is out for more than three days at a time, that doesn't qualify as a "recess." And the Senate has not been out for any extended period, as Republicans have tried to prevent recess appointments.
Remember, back in 2007, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) forced the Senate to technically stay in session to prevent more recess appointments by President George W. Bush, so we've seen that before.
What's really at issue here is that the opposition party in the Senate often does not want to move forward on various nominees, while the President wants to find a way to get those people approved, and that's how recess appointments have been used in recent years.
But this move - because it seems to change the legal argument about Congress having to do "legislative work" in order to be considered "in session" - that move does seem to represent a major change by the Executive Branch.
"The President is ignoring the longstanding advice of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which has found that an adjournment of ‘5 or even 10 days’ would not be sufficient for a recess appointment," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA).
Republicans could take this issue to the Federal Courts, but often those judges (nominated by Presidents and confirmed by Senators) are reluctant to get involved in some kind of fight between the Legislative and Executive branches. We'll see what happens on the legal front in coming weeks.
All I know is that having watched Washington, D.C. up close for years, if this move stands, then this may become standard operating procedure for both parties to get around the checks of the U.S. Senate.
"Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConell (R-KY).
"But what the President did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future President to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process," McConnell said in a statement.
Stay tuned on this one.
