Better or worse than the filibuster?

The Democrats continue being obstructionists (not that anyone thought anything else was possible) and the vote on John Bolton has been delayed yet again. With 60 votes needed to end debate, the count was 54-38. (A few crossed party lines, most notably George Voinovoich, R-Ohio.)

So now there's talk of making Bolton a recess appointment. I've done a number of posts about the filibuster--how it is not only not in the Constitution, but is, in essence, anti-Constitutional--but what of the recess appointment?

At least it's in the Constitution. But the reasons behind it have disappeared. The idea of appointing someone when the Congress wasn't around made sense in an age before email, phones and telegraphs. Temporarily filling an important office was understandable before planes, trains and automobiles.

Now that we know what the Senate thinks, and now that we travel across the nation in hours and communicate instantaneously, it's silly to have recess appointments. Any President who takes advantage of the clause may be following the words of the Constitution, but not the spirit.

Columbus Guy says: The same George Voinovich that voted Bolton out of committee so he could have a floor vote, but said he would vote against him, is now supporting the filibuster, preventing him from having a floor vote? The man has a highly refined sense of principle, I suppose. He must be doing it for, not only his children and grandchildren, but all our children and grandchildren.