Posted By Annie Lowrey Share

U.S. President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, Erroll Southers, has withdrawn his name from consideration for the job. Reportedly, Southers considered himself too much of a lightning rod for controversy. Arch-conservative Sen. Jim DeMint put him on hold, concerned over Southers' willingness to let TSA employees bargain collectively -- and the senator hasn't backed down. After the TSA sat leaderless the day of the attempted Christmas Day pantsbomber attack, Southers apparently had enough.

I profiled this issue yesterday, in a story called "Help Wanted." Southers was just one of 177 appointments held up by the Senate, many via "holds," a congressional tradition -- not an actual constitutional parliamentary maneuever -- that lets single senators stop or pause the confirmation of nominees by threatening to gum up the works. Holds are an old story, mostly a way to force horse-trading, perpetrated by Democrats on Republicans and Republicans on Democrats. But, I write, they've reached a fever pitch one year into the Obama administration.

What I can't figure out is why Obama didn't make use of a real consitutional parliamentary maneuever to get Southers working: the recess appointment. Article II, Section II says, "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Bush did it. Clinton did it. Presidents have done it since the time of Washington. 

It only gets the nominee a year in the spot, and therefore isn't very useful for judicial nominees. But why on Earth didn't Obama appoint Southers, widely considered a good person for the job, even if just for a year?

 

BLUE13326

11:04 AM ET

January 20, 2010

I guess widely 'considered

I guess widely 'considered good for the job' in your estimation includes lying to Congress, and using government law enforcement resources to stalk your ex-wfe?

 

ANNIE LOWREY

11:52 AM ET

January 20, 2010

I'll go out on a limb and say

I'll go out on a limb and say this was just the spit to roast him on -- an obvious screw-up with great political convenience and nothing more.

20 years ago, he looked up his estranged wife's boyfriend. Not a good thing to do, but not a firing offense either. I give him the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't mean to lie about it. One way or another, people have been confirmed that have done much, much worse. He's considered great at transport security -- and the bad background check is orthogonal to that. But it was enough to do him in, after months of scrutiny.

 

BLUE13326

1:59 PM ET

January 20, 2010

A Privacy Act violation and

A Privacy Act violation and perjury is no big deal to you? And to head the TSA? Sure, it might not rise to the level of having the IRS be a tax cheat, but you really don't think this is important? I mean, it's great that some people think he's wonderful at transport security, but Bernie Kerik was great at counter-terrorism, too.

 

ANNIE LOWREY

5:58 PM ET

January 20, 2010

I certainly don't think it's

I certainly don't think it's nothing. But it happened 20 years ago, wasn't a firing offense then, and I don't think he meant to lie about it. Also, DeMint only later brought this up as a reason to oppose the nomination. When he first did in September, it was all about collective bargaining.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More