President Clinton, with the Senate mostly out of Democrat control, made one hundred and forty recess appointments ... Bush has made 110 thus far. The practice is troubling, since it does an end around to the confirmation process, and probably was intended as a way to fill slots made vacant during previously extended congressional recesses. Recent habit, however, is to use it as a way to avoid controversial nomination battles, including those where the recess actually arose when the Senate was in session. Bush has repeatedly used it to install controversial nominees (including two appellate judges) and many times doing so during short recesses, when there was no compelling need to make such an appointment. The person stays in office to the end of the next session.
Putting aside colorable constitutional claims, which only lower courts have covered (upholding recent practice), many of these appointments are simply unjust and greatly troubling. The timing often was a bit off: one judge controversial partly for civil rights reasons was appointed over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. The person involved in the Abramoff prosecution, Alice Fisher, was silently installed during the Katrina disaster (Sen. Levin placed a hold on her nomination "because he wants to talk to an agent who named Fisher in an e-mail about allegedly abusive interrogations at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo"). A recent article noted Fisher had the right connections, but some suggest her appointment was a "fix" to deal with the recent plea agreement matter.
The most recent appointments also were troubling. Half of the Federal Election Committee, including one member supported by Sen. Reid, was installed without the Senate having a chance to examine their record in hearings and so forth ... the whole point of advise and consent. Likewise, Julie Myers was installed as head of Immigration Customs and Enforcement. Her nomination was challenged both on cronyism and qualifications grounds ... ala Miers ... and the importance of the position made this particularly troubling. More so if the Senate was not given a chance to have an up/down vote on the matter.
Bush is on the path to make more recess appointments than Clinton, but clearly Clinton probably had some troubling situations too ... it would be interesting, however, to see a study. For instance, he recess appointed one appellate judge, and only after a decade of repeated blockages by Sen. Helms. This doesn't really match Bush's appointment of two judges, one in fact rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the other particularly controversial. Meanwhile, Clinton's pick was re-nominated by Bush. And, where was Clinton's John Bolton?
Anyway, two wrongs do not make a right, and overall this is a lousy policy. Repeatedly, troubling picks -- picks even a Republican Senate was not trusted with -- were installed by the President alone.