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)!

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.

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.

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.

The Republicans blocked more of Clinton s appointments (i.e. prevented an  up or down vote ) than the Dems have for Bush.

Defeating a nomination in committee is not the same as “preventing an up or down vote”.

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.

They just couldn’t wait, could they? You’d think they could at least pretend to be interested in diplomacy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Regards,
St Wendeler

Dugger

Dugger