Armando complains the decision “eliminates the President's
power to make recess appointments, despite the text of Article II, Section 2,
of the Constitution.”
But if their own say-so is not the legal and constitutional criterion
of whether they, the Congress, are or are not in recess, what is, exactly?
Apparently, we can’t ask the constitution.
No helpful text to be found.
Do we have to ask Armando and the mob of liberal law-hackers
who have attacked this court on just this ground?
It is untrue in any case that this decision eliminates the
presidential power of recess appointments.
What it does is leave standing the apparently constitutional power of the Congress, if
it so wishes, to render it nugatory through perfectly lawful and constitutional chicane.
Anyway, Armando makes clear that his fundamental reason for
regarding this decision as both dishonest and wrong – and that of Bush vs. Gore, as he remarks by the way –
is that this is a Republican court he is certain would not have made the same
ruling on the question if the shoe had been on the other foot and the president
had been the Republican, the Congress being in the hands of Democrats.
Why is he certain of that?
He just is.
No comments:
Post a Comment