This isn't really news, more of a mere formality. The federal government department heads are all expected to resign or be fired when there's a regime shift in the Oval Office (party change).
There's a few independent commissions like the FCC where the members are meant to have a partisan split with the party that controls the White House has the majority. To make that work, the tradition is that the chairman steps down when the White House changes hands.
Kevin Martin (R) resigned on January 19th 2009 to allow Obama to select a chairman; William Kennard (D) resigned on January 19, 2001 to allow Bush to select a chairman; Alfred C. Sikes (R) resigned on January 19, 1993 to allow Clinton to select a chairman, etc.
This has actually been a matter of contention this year; back in March Wheeler was asked by the Senate Commerce Commission if he would follow the tradition and refused to commit, which raised a number of eyebrows. Apparently he thought better of it (or was just having fun keeping people guessing).
> opens up a spot for Obama or Trump to fill.
No, as per normal his resignation is effective on inauguration. The entire point is to let the incoming president fill the spot.
They won't fill up the spot until the next administration.
Live by the sword, die by the sword ...
http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switc...
http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parti...
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Democrats-used-to-be-t...
On the flip side, I expect to see a lot of the reverse as well with large numbers of Democrats refusing to act on or otherwise stalling legislation as retribution for how Republicans have acted the past few years. We're in for a fun ride.
I agree that the Democrats made their bed on that one, but they were at least holding hearings for most of Bush's senior nominees rather than trying to obstruct all his appointments. The refusal to even hear a supreme Court nominee this year shocked me. It would be understandable if Scalia had died close to the election but his seat has been empty for nearly a year now.
Priscilla Owen was denied a vote for an entire presidential term[1].
[1] - http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261878/democrats-blocked-b...
Priscilla Owen was retribution because the Republican senate refused to fill Garwood's seat during Clinton's second term (obstruction that lasted just as long as Owens, 97-01) and she was viewed as too conservative (contrary to what the the Frontpage Mag article says). They're not even in the same ballpark.
We should expect better from everyone, not just shrug and say "well, they started it."
Really people wonder why politician sometimes fight for nonsensical minor tweaks that look like a waste a taxpayer money, but that's exactly it. Most of the government way of working is ruled by tradition rather than law and new laws are created in case of abuse.
After a few cycle of those little games affecting both big parties, they will most likely get tired of it and vote a law that prevent that to ever happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Events_of_Novem...
It's four more years of the same just with slightly different players and the Democrats already know what to do.
Now all this sounds very fine and idealist, but for lawmaking to be valid and have credibility then there needs to be some sort of formality to the process so that the citizenry can find out what their elected representatives are actually doing on their behalf, eg by consulting the Congressional record. Of course much of what happens in the legislative chamber is theatrical most deals are negotiated and brokered behind closed doors, but the lack of accountability that inheres in such arrangements is why there is a requirement for formalities in the first place.
So because there are formal rules on how laws are made, whether Congress is in session or not does matter. When it's only being kept in session by a technicality without any actual legislative work being performed, that says to everyone looking that the party engaging in such behavior regards rules as an obstruction to be got around rather than a standard for governing their own behavior, and that attitude is likely to promulgate itself among the population in various ways.
If you think recess appointments are a silly anachronism, amend the constitution. Unfortunately, I feel there's a particular faction in the country that actively aims at the undoing of the union in favor of a weak federation of states or several regional confederacies. That would not be so bad if the USA were its own planet, but as it's an imperial-scale power sharing the world with several rivals and many smaller national and corporate actors, a deconstruction of the federal system will create all sorts of power vacuums, and you know how that turns out.
This is off-topic, but I don't think that the number of people who genuinely want to do what you describe is effectively none. I suspect that you're actually referring to people who want the government of the United States and the governments of the several states to actually obey the federal and state constitutions. They (and — full disclosure — I) would argue that things for which there's no constitutional provision (e.g. drug prohibition) simply shouldn't exist, or amendments should be passed to permit them.
The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments "during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
Given the joint nature of appointments, and that the legislature is a co-equal branch of government, it seems reasonable that if the Senate would prefer to remain permanently in session so as not to diminish its authority, it's within its right to do so. And that an executive trying to make a recess appointment in this case is exactly the sort of "regard[ing] rules as an obstruction to be got around" that you seem to be railing against.
it seems reasonable that if the Senate would prefer to remain permanently in session so as not to diminish its authority, it's within its right to do so
Legally yes, politically no. There's no quorum so it's not possible to transact any legislative business and everyone knows this. That gap between the procedural state and reality delegitimizes the procedure through its self-evident falsity.
If the public perceives the government to be a sham, why keep obeying it? I suggest to you that the emergent political reality is that the constitution is becoming a dead letter and that the Declaration of Independence more closely mirrors national sentiment.
Edit: it's also worth noting that serving in the Senate was originally a part-time occupation; recesses of several months were common until the 1930s. That's a very different case than in 2016, where the longest break was five weeks.
A recess appointment seems fair here to me. It's not the rules that the president would be working around, it's a failure of congress to act.
Both sides are supposed to have power here. Ideally if either side refuses to do their job for long enough, the other one should be able to install a temporary appointee.
The summary is that within 60 legislative session days of a regulation being issued Congress can go through an expedited process (in particular, not filibusterable) to pass legislation that blocks the rule from going into effect. The catch is that the legislation still needs to be signed by the president, or you have to override the veto. But if you get a new president before the 60 legislative session days are up...
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/11/17/midnight-mulligan-t... has some analysis of how that might play out in this case.