administration, or the long term view - addressing the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.

The WaPo article has two things to note, as quoted:

"The pro forma sessions were pioneered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to thwart nominees of President George W. Bush. Now it is Republican senators who have filed a brief with the court saying justices should also consider the question of pro forma sessions that the D.C. Circuit bypassed."

and

"“This stuff is catnip for law nerds,” Washington lawyer John P. Elwood wrote in a post on the legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy — which, it should be said, is itself catnip for law nerds."

Guilty as alleged. But we nerds also believe it matters, although I'd realistically exclude the need relative to Cabinet Secretaries because there is always a chain of command with political appointments of Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, etc. able to exercise departmental powers as acting Secretary.

the Supreme Court exists.

I can see how both interpretations discussed in the article are made and how each one could be valid.

The Supreme Court needs to hammer out the ambiguity in the wording and decide which interpretation is the correct and furthermore applicable one.

Two words*: Clarence. Thomas.

* You all know the other "words".

the corporations. So, if the decision in anyway will help a corporation to become more powerful or rich, that's the way these paid off hacks will vote.

n/t

And found that it doesn't have much to do with the current meaning of "regulated."

They also noted that the phrase says to "regulate the militia well." Too many understand "well-regulated militia" to mean 'to regulate the firearms well."

I can't see why they're wasting time with legal arguments about the intended meaning of certain words used in the Constitution? Wouldn't it be easier to just pray to "Ja-hee-sus" for guidance, since he wrote the Constitution in the first place, right? At least that's what Conservatives like to tell us. I'm sure Scalia and at least two or three other Justices would agree.

Because then filibuster reform will become inevitable.

Any law school student knows the Supreme Court has historically formally avoided "political questions". After Bush v. Gore we know that is bull and we also know that every decision the court makes includes some element of personal or political influence.

If I recall correctly, during the debate on this provision, one of the main reasons was to ensure that the Executive could fill those key positions expeditiously if the Senate was not in session. It was because back in the early days of the republic, a Senator could be a 2 week horseback ride from the nation's capitol. So this provision gave the President the ability to appoint people to these positions without having to call all of the Senators back to Washington or having to wait until the Senate came back into session.

This is really a political question so, if the supreme court decides "against" anything, they will be revealed as the impotent body they really are. The supreme court explicitly has no enforcement powers.

... this is bush league stuff.

-- Mal

... is sitting at 1600!!

Obama supported the pro forma sessions. He judged them as a necessary means of safeguarding the Senate's prerogatives against executive overreach.

Obama dismisses the pro forma sessions. He judges them as a ridiculously partisan attempt to limit the proper reach of executive power through using an ill-thought-out parliamentarian procedure.

One man's executive overreach is another man's proper reach of executive power.

So, is it the case that the Obama we elected isn't the Obama that's in office?

Is it the case that Obama decides Constitutional questions based entirely on what benefits himself?

Or has Obama forgotten some of that Constitutional law--the longer away from the classroom, the more he forgets?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. On the other hand, that says nothing about a principled consistency, one in which principles, if worthy, are upheld even if they say that you have to face some limitations.

(My real concern is that the SCOTUS will rely on thick-headed interpretations of the word "the" as found in most text grammars and traditional grammars of English, somethlng like "the" is "a definite article." I think we have a decent understanding of the word "the" in modern American English usage. Whether that usage holds for conservative late 18th American usage is a different story. 1960s grammarians were rubbish at analyzing 1950s' usage of the article. It's highly implausible that a grammarian from 1810 would have any useful insight into the usage in the 1790s.)