Here’s an example of a political situation where I disagree with how both sides have handled it. This weekend, President Obama indicated that he was going to fill several top federal jobs through 15 recess appointments (vacancies that can be filled without the Senate’s confirmation when the “legislative body is in recess”). You can read one of this weekend’s articles by CNN here.
I disagree with this in its most basic terms. The Senate should not be holding up Obama’s nominees for political reasons. And the President shouldn’t have to resort to this method in order to push through controversial nominees, like Craig Becker to the NLRB.
Based strictly on reputation and writings, many on both sides of the aisle are concerned that Becker will try to influence the law (through his position) to be more pro-union (without actual legislation being passed – a unique ability the NLRB has). CNN reported that “the chamber’s 41 Republicans asked Obama in a letter last week to refrain from making Becker a recess appointment.” I would have to agree. If Becker is blinded by the union’s marching orders, it would become nearly impossible to have any type of even-close-to-being-fair ruling (or interpretation) come out of the NLRB. While I agree that the NLRB cannot operate with the two-member staff it currently has, if there was one position I wouldn’t appoint through a recess appointment, this might be it.
It’s like the age-old saying… I’m not anti-union, I’m just pro-company. But I doubt I’m in the minority with my thoughts on this one…