If your UN ambassador is so toxic he can’t win approval from a senate where you’ve got the majority, does Bush really have a mandate?
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Its the senate’s job to oversee the president. They wanted documents relating to bolton. How can they advise the president if he wont give them the related documents?
There was already a vote? When?
Democrats can’t bitch and moan about a recess appointment, a Constitutionally-given power of the President, when they themselves violate their Consitutional duty to “advise and consent” by refusing or stalling to vote on a presidential appointment. Clinton had his recess appointments too when the Republicans played this game. In fact, Thurgood Marshall was a JFK recess appointment.
Well, he did receive a majority of votes in the Senate. And up until now, that’s usually been enough to confirm. So the question is, why do Democrats want to change 70 years of history?
I see the neo-con, neo christian, neo-fascists have turned out to comment! LOL
I looooove the smell of burning wingnuts in the morning! And it’s a great way to get rid of all that nasty napalm they love so much! LMAO
The difference is, Thurgood Marshall was pretty good all round, and the repugs hated him, but couldn’t get any dirt on him (And also because he was a negro)! Bolton is a dirty, lieing SOB. The Dems don’t want him because he is a BAD choice. Simple really.
You may dispute that now (but it won’t make abit of difference!) LOL
“Marshall remained on that court until 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson appointed him Solicitor General.”
“On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of justice Tom C. Clark, saying that this was “the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place.” He was the 96th person to hold the position, and the first African-American.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
Looks like he had an excellent record too! I doubt Bolton will! LOL
That’s the new Democratic Party excuse for not voting on Presidential nominees — “we need more documents.” Such bullshit. It’s not about documents, it’s about stalling and trying to weaken and/or embarass the President. The Democrats refused all deals with respect to the documents they claim to need so badly. They couldn’t find any signficant dirt in the thousands of documents they have, so they keep asking for more in the hopes of finding something.
Watch as Shumer et al, try that game with Roberts — unsuccessfully.
The irony is that had the Democrats allowed a vote, Bolton might very well have lost as there were certainly some Republicans who were against his nomination. Thus, rather than embarass the President, the Democrats have once again revelaed themselves to the the opbstructionists that they are.
Wow, a democrat had his turn to be corrupt so now republicans should get their turn? And do you wonder why only ~50% of eligible voters actually bother to vote?
You’re right. Bolton is much more qualified to be a Democratic President!
Has anyone ever heard of Bill Lan Lee or the other 139 recess appointees by Prez Clinton.
It is the White House that stalled the process by refusing to provide documents related to Bolton that were needed by the committee. They want these dodgy appointments to be rubberstamped by the Senate, and then refuse to provide information on the candidate, instead saying “Trust us”.
Now we know that Bolton lied when he didn’t disclose that he was interviewed in 2003 by the State Dept in the inquiry about Niger claims. He says that he “didn’t recall” the meeting.
Is a liar and serial abuser really who we want representing us in the UN? If you’re a rubberstamp Republican, it is.
Maybe, just maybe, it isn’t Bush’s “fault” any more than it is the Democrats’ “fault.” Our two-party system has become so antagonistic and adversarial that except for moments of national crisis when everyone pretends to get along, it is out of control. Bush no more wants to “win” than Clinton wanted to “win” when he made recess appointments. The Democrats no more want to “win” in blocking Bush’s nominees than then the Republicans wanted to “win” when blocking Clinton’s nominees.
This wasn’t about concern for the U.N., because the U.N. is a joke. It was about winning, as much for the Democrats as Bush. It’s the way they play the game.
It’s irrelevant at this point that Bush appointed Bolton. The mindset of Bush is that of a mobster. Loyalty or nothing. He went to the mattresses only because he was challenged. The problem, of course, is that he just sent a thoroughly discredited thug to the UN who will have absolutely no authority. Why should anybody at the UN listen to Bolton when he clearly does not have the support of his own people? Answer? He won’t. He’s a disastrous appointment and he’ll weaken the United States while allowing all the problems of the UN to fester due to his own inability and illegitimacy. But he had to get appointed because Bush had to “win”, like a spoiled little child. There are countless serious conservative UN reformers that Bush could have appointed, but all he cared about was winning his battle. Like a bully, the only source of his strength is in appearing strong. Once the illusion disappears he flops like a house of cards.
The neo-point isn’t a comparison of Marshall and Bolton. The point is that both sides have at times shirked their Consitutional duty to “advise and consent” by giving the President a vote on his nomniees and then feign indignation when a President makes a recess appointment, just like the Democrats are doing now.
I wonder if when JFK appointed Marshall if Teddy would have said that that was “a devious maneuver.” Somehow I doubt it.
I’m not defending the appointee, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the leftwingnuts crying about how a recess appointment threatens democracy while it is eprfectly acceptable for them to refuse to vote on a presidential nominee. The fact that the U.N. is a joke just goes to the fact that the hold up by the Democrats was not about concern for the U.N., but rather to beat Bush.
“the hold up by the Democrats was not about concern for the U.N., but rather to beat Bush. “
A mind-reading act, eh? OK, I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 1,000. Do your stuff, Hedley the Magnificent.
Operative phrase: “Bush nominated him…” Thus, he is entitled to a vote, just like Clinton was entitled to have his nominees voted on when the Republicans tried to block them.
Ironically, Bolton very well could have lost the vote.
As I said before, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Bicker all you want about “how the game was played” but Bush is now alone in holding the bag for whatever Bolton does at the UN. If I were Bush I’m not sure I’d be so happy about that given Bolton’s record. Of course, Bush nominated him because he’s a strong arm operative and a thug but we’ll just see how that goes down with the rest of the world. I am fully confident that we can expect Bolton to have his own Kruschev moment, banging a shoe or his head on a desk and sputtering something about lopping off the top ten floors of the UN building. What an ass.
So if teh UN is a joke, then why defend a UN appointee?
“Disclosure is bullshit! Being honest is bullshit!” Yep, more right-wing rhetoric. Why tell the truth? It just gets in the way, right?
It’s too bad Bushco wouldn’t give the Senate the documents they requested.
( How many times have BushCo refused to turn over info on one issue or another?…god , Bushco has to have set a record for stonewalling the legislative branch )
Then we could have just got on with the vote. Another BushCo failure.
The truth is, this is nothing new, but usually the recess appointments (Bush has made something like 110 of them, Clinton made 140 of them) are for minor & non-controversial positions, with nominations like Marshall (JFK), Earl Warren, Walter Brennan and Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, I believe) being the exceptions.
Most are later confirmed by the Senate, and when they aren’t, they resign. Bolton probably won’t be confirmed – ever.
Ahh, the good old days when Republicans blocked nominees for good reason – like when they’re openly gay (Ambassador Hormel).
“I am not in support of or against Bolton”
That’s a nice cop out. So to is it to simply say that “advise and consent” clearly means a vote. It doesn’t. If the founders intended it to mean a vote why didn’t they put it in writing?
I think Bolton is a horrible nomination given his stated opinions of the UN and the validity of international law and treaties as well as what I know of his track record on proliferation issues. His personal management style (if you can even call it that) and his dubious dealings in the Niger/Wilson episode are secondary reasons to dissaprove of his appointment. But I also don’t have a problem with a recess appointment. Like you say it’s Bush’s consitutional perogative.
But there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a nominee is required to be given an up or down vote. It is pefectly legitimate and Constitutional for the minority party to express its dissent in the way the Democrats have. To suggest that the Democrats have violated the Consitution is spin plain and simple.
The reason the Democrats have to look critically on these appointments is because the Republicans fail to do so. Republicans vote in lockstep for every wingnut loon that Shrub nominates, regardless of whether the person is qualified. They don’t take Americans seriously enough to closely examine who Bush is nominating.
It is the Democrats who are shining the light on these loons, it is telling that about 99% of Bush’s nominees have sailed right through without Democratic objection, but when a batshit crazy idiot like Bolton comes up for nomination, the Democrats have to use whatever resources they have available to protect the country. The rubber stamp Republican’s sure won’t protect us.
If the Democrats are so sure that Bolton is “unqualified, ill-equipped nominee” then all the more reason to allow a vote. What are they afraid of?
The Constitution requires that the Senate “advise and consent” clearly that means a vote. The same Constitution allows a President to make recess appointments.
I am not in support of or against Bolton, simply supporting the process that requires a vote, no matter which party is in the White House. It’s that “fair and balanced” thing that obviously gives so many here so much trouble.
It’s too bad the request for documents was only a ruse by the Democrats, intent on obstructing a vote on Bush’s nominee. It’s too bad the Democrats rejected all overtures at making a deal on the documents requested.
And please, Hedley, the administration offered Biden and the Dems redacted documents. It was not a compromise, it was sleight of hand. Biden wanted the same documents that Bolton had access to because there were questions about Bolton’s misuse and distortion of intelligence. Once again it came down to the administration balking in the face of accusations about “fixing” intelligence. Why is it that this keeps coming up with these guys? Hmmm. Giving the Dems redacted documents was no compromise at all because it wouldn’t have settled any of the question about how Bolton used WMD intelligence or strong arm those who disagreed with him. Just another bit of BushCo smoke and mirrors.
Personally, I can’t *wait* to see what Fitzgerald has on Bolton, seems he’s been sniffing around that rat’s cage for a while now.
Bush just threw is arm wide around Bolton and gave him the Dubya stamp of approval, everyone warned him against it, but Bolton is *Bush’s* man now. No way Dubya can distance himself from the stink rising up from the “mustachioed one.”
This recess appointment may yet prove to be a boon for the left.
No cop out at all. Certainly no more so then “If the founders intended…” I don’t recall the founders using the words “abortion” or “privacy” in the Constitution so I am sure we would agree that he intent of the founders is as important as the actual wording of the Constitution. Historically, “advice and consent” has meant a vote. To suggest otherwise is the true cop out.
I’m sure that when the Republicans were holding up Clinton’s nominees you were arguing that such was “perfectly legitimate.”
“What are they afraid of?”
Um, I think they were afraid of sending Bolton to the UN. After, Bush and Co. have a lovely track record of rewarding and promoting incompetents.
“If the Democrats are so sure that Bolton is unqualified, ill-equipped nominee then all the more reason to allow a vote. What are they afraid of?”
I imagine they are afraid of the Rubberstamp Republicans and their unbridled zest in sending “unqualified, ill-equipped” Bush nominees through without question.
The GOP has become nothing more than a cult.
“I m not defending the appointee …”
So what is your point? If you don’t support Bolton why are the Democrats obstructionists? Certainly keeping an unqualified, ill-equipped nominee from going through is a good thing. If you do support Bolton, because you think the UN is a joke, why not just say so?
And last time I checked the Constitution doesn’t guarantee and “an up or down vote” to any nominee.
Because over 40% of the senate believes that they do not have enough information and/or they believe that there are unanswered questions that need to be addressed? Are you the type of person that goes to the ballot box and only needs to remember left from right? The senate needs enough information to vote intelligently or else it just becomes a popularity contest.
This is all much ado about nothing. Bolton’s job isn’t a very important one, truth be known. Bush looks strong to his constituents for supporting his man. Dems looks strong to their constituents for opposing Bolton all the way. Dems may be slight losers in overall process because they have shot silver bullets and Bush’s appt. results in public focus on their “obstructionism” and makes it maybe a little harder to sustain action against supreme court nominees (much more important) and have the latter not appear to be crass partisan politics. I remember Lani Guinier and Bill Lann Lee.
Dugger
Dugger
If a vote would’ve been held by the Senate, a recess appointment would not have been necessary. A filibuster does not equal a rejection of the candidate – an actual vote does.
Regards,
St Wendeler
It was republican senators that requested the documents in the first place. so…were the republicans trying to hold the vote up in the first place? (trying to save w from emarrassment?)
no, the original requesters just willingly obliged when the administration said to roll over and play dead.
“Rubberstamp Republicans”–sad, but that’s all that remains of the grand old party these days.
“You re basically suggesting that at various times both the Democratic and Republican leaderships have violated the Consitution in denying Presidential nominees an up or down vote.”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am saying that the Senate’s role to give “advice and consent” is violated if the Senate refuses to allow an up or down vote on a President’s nominee. Doesn’t matter which party is doing it.
I am also saying that just because the founders did not specifially state that “advice and consent” means a vote does not mean that a vote is not necessarily required. The founders also did not specifically state a right to privacy and yet the country overwhelmingly believes that the Constitution does in fact guarantee such a right. Can’t have it both ways.
Once again you shift the debate to some other issue, some moment in the past. Let’s try to stick to the present, shall we? But since you bring it up. First, I don’t have a problem with any minority party excercising its right to block or hold up any nominee. I also don’t have a problem with recess appointments. It is indeed how the game is played. We’re simply on opposite sides of this thing but for you to imply that I’m a hypocrite by bringing up abortion rights in is typical and utterly lame.
You’re basically suggesting that at various times both the Democratic and Republican leaderships have violated the Consitution in denying Presidential nominees an up or down vote. That’s a little strong isn’t it?
The problem is that they are running short on failures, they had no one to appoint in place of Bolton.
I don t recall the founders using the words abortion or privacy in the Constitution so I am sure we would agree that he intent of the founders is as important as the actual wording of the Constitution.
Mark this down, everyone: Headley supports abortion rights.
Historically, advice and consent has meant a vote.
A statement that is otiose and tendentious down to its bones. If you mean that historically, most nominees have been voted on, then you are correct, but trivially so. The constitution allows great leeway to the Senate in determining the processes by which it signifies its “consent”, and – historically- the Senate has exercised its freedom by setting its own rules and procedures.
The Republicans blocked more of Clinton’s appointments (i.e. prevented an “up or down vote”) than the Dems have for Bush. I don’t recall _any_ right wingers at the time saying “gosh, what we’re doing is unconstitutional.”
It’s also true that I don’t remember any Dems clucking their tongues when Clinton made recess appointments, but I don’t think anyone here is calling for an end to recess appointments (the way Republicans recently threatened to end the filibuster). What we’re saying is that this is a spectacularly foolish and invidious use of that power, and that it is part of a pattern of foolish and invidious behavior on the part of Bush that is driving the country down, and apart.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/articles/vol5num2/marcotte.pdf
Conclusion:
“Understanding the Advice and Consent Clause requires a close
look at its origins and its historical uses. The origins of the Clause
indicate a division between those who wanted the appointment power
to rest solely in the Executive and those who wanted the power to rest
solely in the Legislature, with the final language proving to be a compromise designed to mollify both parties. Additionally, despite claims
to the contrary, Congress has frequently used its advice and consent
function to play an active role in the confirmation process. As early as
the presidency of George Washington, Congress s disapproval of judicial
nominations was based on both concerns with qualifications and
on the nominee s political views.
This heritage continued to thrive throughout the eighteenth century,
leading to the rejection of many nominations, including Rutherford
B. Hayes s nomination of Stanley Matthews. After the Hayes
presidency, the Senate s role in the confirmation process may have
been less prominent, but the Senate has reasserted its power in recent
years. These struggles have once again led to some nominations being
rejected by the Senate. This history provides a useful guide for those
making decisions about what advice and consent should mean. The
Senate owes the Constitution and America advice on whether particular
nominations are proper and has a responsibility to consent only
when the nominees are acceptable.”
I’m no constitutional scholar but it seems to me that there’s plenty of historical precdent ofor both the right to privacy and the active role of the Senate in rejecting Presidential nominees.
What?
Sweet Screaming Monkeys, that’s a bad argument.
The founders also did not specifically state that I get free Popsicles. The founders also did not specifically state there’s a right to privacy, so make mine Grape, please.
The right to privacy has emerged from a long line of Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution stretching back over many years. Your “advise and consent equals a vote” notion hasn’t been tested quite so thoroughly.
Hmm, on the same day Bolton is installed as ambassador the US warns Iran on nuclear threats.
They just couldn’t wait, could they? You’d think they could at least pretend to be interested in diplomacy.
“I am saying that the Senate s role to give advice and consent is violated if the Senate refuses to allow an up or down vote on a President s nominee.”
You’re a bit too focused on the consenting. I’d argue that in order to not violate the “advise and consent” role, we need a shitload more advising going on to match the overwhelming amount of consenting that happens with this group of rubber-stampers.
Just in case you were wondering how the machinery works at the UN itself, the UN’s main web page has Copyright 2004 on it. Still probably waiting for approval of 2005 in the General Assembly.
Defeating a nomination in committee is not the same as “preventing an up or down vote”.
Yet another example of AWOL George continuing to embarrass this nation.
How can the Senate advise when the White House refuses to let them look at the documents? Last I heard, the Congress was supposed to be a co-equal branch of governmet.
If the documents had been released, maybe the senators could have given informed consent.
Another point-Do you want a man who lies about whether he was investigated and who may leak information outing covert operatives inside the UN?
According to SaveFerris:
Defeating a nomination in committee is not the same as preventing an up or down vote .
Trouble with that statement is that dozens of Clinton nominees were never even allowed a vote on the Judiciary Committee by the Repubs. To spell it out for you that’s dozens more than the number of Bush nominees that the dems have stalled through threat of filibuster, etc..
It’s fun watching the rightwingers squirm. “By advise and consent, the founders clearly meant an up-or-down vote by the whole Senate..um, unless it’s a Democratic nominee in which case they clearly meant that a committee vote would do.” I haven’t heard so much casuistry and equivocation since Bill was fibbing about blowjobs. Just goes to show: repubs would never, ever lie about sex. They only lie about important things.
Not to mention the fact that the Republicans blocked Clinton’s Clinton’s nominee for U.N. ambassador, Richard Holbrooke for over a year. That left the USA without a voice in the UN. And why was he blocked? Because Lott and McConnell wanted to apply pressure on the White House to nominate Bradley A. Smith, an Ohio law professor, for a “Republican” position on the Federal Election Commission! So, they left the USA vulnerable for a year because they wanted to play politics.
I think that the Repugs crying about Bolton being blocked (for legitimate reasons) is more than simply the pot calling the kettle black!
What a pack of hypocrits.
WHAT??? Are you really that ignorant of history?
It was Robert Byrd (D-WV) who led the Southern Democrat’s obstruction of a vote on Kennedy’s appointment of Thurgood Marshall in 1961. Kennedy did the right thing and used his constitutional right of a recess appointment to get Marshall on the US District Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit. And Marshall wasn’t just “pretty good all around. He won 29 of his 32 Supreme Court Cases prior to being nominated.
If the President wants to make a recess appointment, that is his constitutional right. Crying that it is somehow underhanded (especially when the appointee had the votes and was being obstructed) is just silly political games.
You want your people in those places, win some elections.
You’re right Marty. It’s W’s constitutional right to make a recess appointment, whether if they’re qualified or not, even sending a neo-facist liar like Bolton to the UN.
If Bolton follows his usual pattern he will piss everyone else off in the UN and few, if any, of the representatives willl work with him, which will make him as worthless in that job as he was in his previous one. Then the Senate will probably let him stay for the rest of W’s term because he wont have enough power to do any damage.
So, enjoy your “victory” while you can before you wish you had never heard of this guy.