Oh, the NY Times. The Newspaper of Record. The Old Gray Lady. Standard bearer that sets the bar for all other media. Conveyer of truth, balance, objectivity, and "all the news that's fit to print."
So, what is the NY Times' position on presidential recess appointments?
Well, it depends on who the president is!
Here is what Damon Root at Reason dug up:
In January 2006, The New York Times published an unsigned editorial attacking “the grandiose vision of executive power” displayed by President George W. Bush, who was then battling Senate Democrats over the fate of several controversial nominees to federal office. “Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments—a constitutional gimmick,” announced the Times.
Of course, Bush's recess appointments were NEITHER a grandiose vision of executive power NOR a constitutional gimmick. It was completely and wholly within Bush's right to make any appointments he wanted between the end of the 110th Congress and start of the 111th. The notoriously Bush-hating rag the Times just didn't like anything Bush did: They propagated the lie that the War in Iraq was illegal and unconstitutional (and immoral). And you may remember how the entire DBF* media reacted to Bush's firing of eight U.S. attorneys, while not objecting to the previous president Bill Clinton's firing of all 93! Same double standard.
Also, Bush didn't not make any more recents appointments not because the bitter partisan Democrat-majority Senate and House pulled that stupid gavel stunt, but because the Constitution didn't permit the president to make any other such appointments.
Now fast forward to the present. Last week, a D.C. Circuit Court -- hardly a bunch of right-wing extremists! -- unanimously declared unconstitutional President Hope&Change's recess appointments last January, including three to the hyperpartisan National Labor Relations Board. (Yes, the same NLRB that recently bullied Boeing for the audacity of trying to set up shop in a right-to-work state!) Why? Because (A) there was NO transition between two Congresses and (B) Congress was NOT in recess; Obama just waved his magic wand and declared it so!
So, how does the same NY Times react to the D.C. Court's ruling:
In an unsigned editorial titled “A Court Upholds Republican Chicanery,” theTimes blasted the D.C. Circuit for placing limits on Obama’s authority. “With no sign that Republicans are willing to let up on their machinations, Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive power to keep federal agencies operating ...”
Got that, everyone? Bush's completely legitimate recess appointments: "a grandiose vision of executive power" and "constitutional gimmick." Obama's completely illegitimate appointments: "justified executive power" being undermined by "Republican chicanery" and "Republican machinations".
Nope! No liberal media bias here!
What a freaking joke.