THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
MEANWHILE, IN WASHINGTON . . .

Recess appointment of Warren would be wrong

June 8, 2011

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

Text size +

IT’S NO surprise that the Globe supports expanding the nanny state in the form of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Warren’s clear voice irks GOP, but Obama should stand by her,’’ Editorial, June 5). But endorsing a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head the agency in order to bypass Senate confirmation is unwarranted.

When Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution was written to allow recess appointments, Congress was adjourned for between six and nine months at a time. Such appointments were rarely used prior to the 1940s. In recent years they have been used more frequently by both parties, leading to cat-and-mouse games between the Senate and the president.

For the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, held pro forma sessions — described in the Globe at the time as “faux’’ sessions — to prevent recess appointments, just as the Republicans are threatening to do now.

Recess appointments are controversial, and they avoid the advice and consent power of the Senate to be consulted on presidential appointments. It’s sad to see the Globe support them to further its own agenda.

Brett W. F. Randolph
Cambridge