You and your like are a bunch of hypocrits. When Bush did a recess appointment you guys took it as a affront to the constitution. But now that Barry does it and violates the constitution to do it (since the Senate was in session), its ok.
With liberals, the ends ALWAYS justify the means.
Actually, you're the hypocrite. Where is your criticism of the Bush recess appointments?
Silence. You did not, right? But now you will, for no reason other than it's Obaba?
And you have gall, you hypocrite, to say others are being hypocritical?
Now, two wrongs don't make a right - are both hypocrites? No.
You're ignorant. You don't understand the issue, the difference between the issues in the appointments between Bush and Obama that make Obama's better than Bush's.
Here's a little taste of the history.
Under Clinton, the Republicans abused the power of approval. They did things like leave massive vacancies on courts causing crises simply to try to wait years to get the chance for the next president to make appointments, or other power plays. They'd threaten not to approve any judicial appointments at all as a way of extorting him to meet demands they had they had no basis for making, like giving them advance written notice of any recess appointments.
They even changed the rules for approvals to make it easier for Republicans to block appointments, requiring only one instead of both Senators to object.
Of course, as soon as Bush took office all that changed - no more advance written notice of recess appointments, back to both Senators needed to block an appointment, etc.
And the Republicans shamelessly used the powers they had denied Clinton - recess appointments went way up and were not any controversy. But why did they happen?
Democrats had used recess appointments more for things like getting around bigotry. Truman appointed a black judge blocked by Southern racists. Clinton's nomination for ambssador was not voted on by the Senate - he was gay. Clinton recess appointed him and he became the first openly gay ambassador.
In contrast, while Republicans had blocked many of Clinton's judicial appointments, Bush was much more radical in appointing right-wing nominees, even replacing the evaluator of nomminees since the ABA used by both parties since Eisenhower with the radical right-wing Federalist Society. Democrats gave him a lot of latitude and approved far more of his nominees than they had Clinton's, but blocked a handful of the worst for very good reason. Republicans howled, dishonestly, that the Democrats were highly obstructionist.
This was the case where Bush recess appointed even those handful of judges.
Another case was that Bush wanted to appoint a man many found to be hugely unqualified to be the US ambassador to the UN, a man openly hostile to the agency, John Bolton.
The Senate would not confirm him - so Bush recess appointed him. This is the level of crap nominee Bush nominated with the 'recesss power'.
Bush made 171 recess appointments.
Again in contrast, Republican objections to nominees repeatedly are not based on any legitimate objections, but sometimes even admittedly - as in the case of Cordrey, have nothing to do with the nominee's qulifications, but are political - in the bad sense of the word, as in refusing to give any latitude for the President not sharing their ideology, or in this case abusing the power of approval to try to make an end run around the agency even functioning.
This was the case as well in the example of Clinton appointing a black judge to the US Court of Appeals that had been vacant for *ten years*.
Clinton finally made a recess appointment after trying to get Republicans to vote on him for years, just before he left office.
The objections were not about his qualifications - in fact he was so clearly qualified even Bush chose not to be seen denying the appointment and nominated him himself.
No problem approving him, when BUSH made the nomination instead of Clinton.
The issue isn't as simple as all nominations and blocking being the same between the parties. Republicans have played politics far more and abused the power.
Just as they are here. There are very different reasons between Obama and Bush recess appointments.
In fact, it was bad enough with Bush, that the last two years of his presidency when Democrats took control, they kept the Senate in session to prevent more appointments.
So Bush's 171 were just in the six years before. In contrast, by Wikipedia's count this is Obama's 18th recess appointment and only two failed approval by the Senate.