in that thread. A very few seem to think he couldn't.

The bigger question is why the vast majority of people in that thread were absolutely convinced he WOULDN'T. The "always think the worst" crowd is the news in that thread. How do they answer to their negative predictions?

between the gaveling closed of the first session and calling to order of the second session of the 112th Congress. And, of course, that isn't what he did. Instead, he's treating the fact that the Senate is sitting in adjournment for a week as a sufficiently long recess (notwithstanding interim pro forma sessions) to allow for a recess appointment. There is a price to be paid for that approach (in that it means the Democrats won't be able to use it in the future as they did in 2007 and 2008 to stop bush II from making recess appointments), but most of the posts I saw indicated that it was a price worth paying.

"to make a recess appointment under the current circumstances would be moving into largely uncharted waters and would, of course, set a precedent for the repubs to do the same thing down the road."
As reason he should not do so. Yet he did so. And he was right to do so.

It was specifically addressing whether the President should have made a recess appointment yesterday based on the "constructive" recess that occurred in the fleeting seconds between the end of the first session and start of the second session of the 112th Congress. It suggested he wouldn't/shouldn't. And he didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=16417

calling out people is not kosher.

not the greatest way to build up your post counts.

... a bunch of 6 year-olds at recess anymore.

Piss Piss Piss .... I know you are but what am I? Piss Piss Piss ....

is also rather tasteless . . .

are just playing head games by stopping his nominees anyway.

months on end, for why he couldn't possibly make a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren.

It's a little bit strange.