Bolton appointed UN ambassdor during recess?

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
But if it continues to the point that an average citizen feels the Republicans are subverting our government, it may be bad for the Reps in the next election cycle.

[/b]

If they're hanging their hats on that, I think it's a forlorn hope. My feeling is the true "average citizen" doesn't care about the Bolton nomination one whit.

I'd go so far as to say the UN itself doesn't make much of a blip on the "average US citizen's" radar.

   

To be fair, I think all Presidents have made recess appointments, though I'm not sure how many did it as an end run around the Senate.

I'd guess most are end runs. I serously doubt the appointments are SO important they just can't wait a few months. Look how long the Bolton thing dragged out.

Found this:

Clinton has used the recess appointment relatively sparingly; his average of nine per year is far lower than Reagan's 30 and Bush's 20.

They all do it to some extent. I'd guess most are "end run". It's certainly not a rare thing, especially amongst the Republicans if that quote is correct.

BTW, the article also said "the Senate hasn't looked kindly on most unconfirmed appointments".

Duh! It diminishes Senate power. The proper thing to do to prevent this, IMO, is exercise the Senate's proper power and vote.

And yeah, I'd say the same thing if the Reps were stalling a Dem President's pick for anything. Give it a good debate, as good as you can get, and vote/move on.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Toad
And yeah, I'd say the same thing if the Reps were stalling a Dem President's pick for anything. Give it a good debate, as good as you can get, and vote/move on.

Maybe if they would just release the requested info instead of giving the impression to the average Joe that they are hiding something they would get that vote over and done with.

[Toad]

Well, that would be the easy way, wouldn't it. I wish they'd have released it the first time they were asked. We'd be done already.

For whatever reason, and I'm sure not privy to it, it seems the Bush Admin has decided "vote now or we recess appoint".

Given that choice, if I were a Senator from either side, I'd vote.

I'd vote "no" too, if I felt that info could be/shold be a key factor in my decision process.

As it is now, it looks like they can vote and have a chance of stopping Bolton or they can sit on their hands and let Bush put Bolton in till 2007.

Again, I'd go for the vote faced with this choice. There's my .02

[rpm]

Originally posted by Toad
For whatever reason, and I'm sure not privy to it, it seems the Bush Admin has decided "vote now or we recess appoint".

Given that choice, if I were a Senator from either side, I'd vote.

I'd vote "no" too, if I felt that info could be/shold be a key factor in my decision process.

I'd vote Nay as well, simply because Bush is intent on forcing a vote without releasing the info the Senate has requested. I normally don't respond well to being strongarmed.

[Toad]

Yeah, I gotta believe there's more than a few guys ticked at the "up yours" attitude Bush is giving them on Bolton.

If the info they're asking for isn't "national security" or something, if I were a Senator of either stripe, I'd vote no unless I got what the Senate asked to see.

Doesn't look like "national security" to me. This back in May:

The State Department is refusing to make public internal documents sought by Senate Democrats in their attempt to seek more information about repeated clashes between John R. Bolton and American intelligence agencies over Syria, administration officials say.

In rejecting the request, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that the information involves "internal deliberations" and their disclosure could have a chilling effect on debates within the administration

[Dead Man Flying]

My dissertation advisor once had a discussion with now-Attorney General Gonzales (then-White House Counsel) about why the Bush administration so vehemently fights the release of even basic and non-incriminating documents to Congress.  His response was that he felt the Supreme Court featured a majority in favor of expansive executive priviledge, and the idea was to force Congress into a constitutional battle over the administration's unwillingness to provide documents on demand.

What you have seen is a Congress unwilling to bring an executive power issue before a Supreme Court that is likely to side with the executive.  No doubt the Bolton documents issue plays into a number of administration strategies -- first of baiting Congress into an executive power debate, and second by painting Democrats in Congress as obstructionist.

Why would Democrats prefer that this vote not go to the floor?  Simple.  A president forced to appoint a nominee through non-traditional ways appears weak.  A president who can not invoke cloture on a nominee appears weak.  Even if Bolton becomes U.N. ambassador by a recess appointment, Bush begins looking more and more like a lame duck.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Toad]

Fine by me. If he's weak, he's weak.

Let the games begin.

Oops! It's probably half-time already!

[oboe]

I wonder if the American people are in favor of more expansive executive privilege?

[midnight Target]

Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio called the diplomat arrogant and bullying.

"This United States can do better than John Bolton,"

"the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.

Yea... lets have him representin.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Toad


Found this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton has used the recess appointment relatively sparingly; his average of nine per year is far lower than Reagan's 30 and Bush's 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 [/B]

Sounds like the Dems have mastered obstructing nominations.  No one will be surprised if this lesson will be used on the next democrat in office.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Krusher
Sounds like the Dems have mastered obstructing nominations.  No one will be surprised if this lesson will be used on the next democrat in office.

Or maybe Clinton made more of an effort to nominate people who were less objectionable to the Republicans.

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
I wonder if the American people are in favor of more expansive executive privilege?

I say in questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

Oh wait...... somebody else already said that.

Originally posted by Krusher
 
Sounds like the Dems have mastered obstructing nominations.

Originally posted by Oboe

Or maybe Clinton made more of an effort to nominate people who were less objectionable to the Republic

C'mon guys. The Dems and Reps are as alike in this as two peas on a pod. Both sides have been obstructing judicial appointments and the like for as long as I can remember and that's a pretty long time.

Now where's my "enter" key to get this posted?

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Toad
I say in questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

Oh wait...... somebody else already said that.

 




C'mon guys. The Dems and Reps are as alike in this as two peas on a pod. Both sides have been obstructing judicial appointments and the like for as long as I can remember and that's a pretty long time.

Now where's my "enter" key to get this posted?

Thats why I voted for Perot twice, I wanted a third party to keep the other two honest.  

Oh well