This of course can also become the new 'practice' when someone from the Democrat party is president.

There is no such thing as "the Democrat Party".

But if Rodney's goal is to sound as small-minded and ignorant as the President, it is working...

That's not really true anymore. In the case of district court judges, for example, homestate senators essentially appoint them with the advise and consent of the White House.

In the broader sense, though, the ability of a minority in the Senate to stop a nominee means that 60 votes are needed. That leads to compromises, where the Senate trades the president passage of some nominees in exchange for his "nominating" hand-picked candidates chosen by powerful Senators.

I thought that was a bad idea when Jesse Helms and Co. were holding Bill Clinton hostage, too, BTW.

Uncharacteristically silly, JJ. The Senate does not have, and never will have, the power to nominate appointees. It can accept or reject them.

One has to believe that the Framers, who did not at all expect the Legislature and the Executive to work hand-in-hand, knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the Senate the power of "advice and consent."

Fake sessions? Gosh what do you think?

For one I'd point out that Bush repeatedly appoints people who lack the technical and moral qualifications for jobs.

Um, Ok. But what does that have to do with fade sessions?

For one I'd point out that Bush repeatedly appoints people who lack the technical and moral qualifications for jobs.

In fact republicans are obsessed with avoiding examination of the morals involved. Do you think its appropriate that billions are being shoveled to everybody who gave Bush money? Do you think there are any quid pro quos there?

Do you think that replacing federal attorneys was about the country or about Bush and the Party? Do you think the people he chose will execute their jobs with integrity?

Let me guess. The answer to every question is always, the Dems did something as well. Sort of like comparing stealing a peck on the cheek with gang rape, but there is always some shrill cultist to proclaim they are equal.

one guesses that such an amendment is unlikely

Since recess appointment is generally, if not always, used to circumvent the power of the legislative branch, I don't see why that branch wouldn't propose such an amendment. Unless you mean it's unlikely to pass, in which case I agree. Even though it's obviously useless, there will be people who will claim that the Presidency absolutely needs that power to do it's job.

Say goodby to those recess appointments everbody loves.  While Bush may take August off, the Senate may not.
Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk...

This of course can also become the new 'practice' when someone from the Democrat party is president.

Well, I doubt that a Democratic president will have to make so many recess appointments when the Republians slip into an even smaller minority in the Senate.