I'm Back Because of Recess (appointments)
At work today a coworker of mine was lamenting the recess appointment of John Bolton the UN. He couldn't understand how the President could possibly be right in circumventing the Senate in that way.
My comment to him was it's too bad he had to wait for a recess, and that he didn't use the tactic more often to get his judicial nominations on the bench. Now, if he were to have used that appointment for John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I'd be angry. Let me explain why the difference.
In the case of Bolton, he's been sitting around waiting for a hearing that may never come, only because Senate Democrats have stalled his nomination, not for any real disqualification, but because they don't like him, he's abbrasive. The stall tactic hasn't been a cloture vote as it was with judicial nominees, instead it hs been constant requests for more documentation on his past government work.
Mr. Bolton has sat for months, waiting, and constantly being jerked around by the whining of Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, mostly because they know he won't be a puppet of the current folks in charge of the UN.
In the case of Judicial Appointments, I believe the President should appoint every person he's nominated who hasn't had a vote.
Regardless of the "group of 14" who colluded to stop a Senate rules change to eliminate the judicial filibuster, the President's nominees have a right to a hearing before the Senate. If the Senate won't give it to them, he should just put them on the bench during recesses.
Now, why would I be angry about Roberts? Easy, he was only just nominated, and the course of the Senate hasn't been decided. The Senate should have sufficient time, say 3 months, to get their work done. Then if the obstructionists decide they need to block the nomination some how, then the President should work unilaterally to appoint his nominee.
My comment to him was it's too bad he had to wait for a recess, and that he didn't use the tactic more often to get his judicial nominations on the bench. Now, if he were to have used that appointment for John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I'd be angry. Let me explain why the difference.
In the case of Bolton, he's been sitting around waiting for a hearing that may never come, only because Senate Democrats have stalled his nomination, not for any real disqualification, but because they don't like him, he's abbrasive. The stall tactic hasn't been a cloture vote as it was with judicial nominees, instead it hs been constant requests for more documentation on his past government work.
Mr. Bolton has sat for months, waiting, and constantly being jerked around by the whining of Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, mostly because they know he won't be a puppet of the current folks in charge of the UN.
In the case of Judicial Appointments, I believe the President should appoint every person he's nominated who hasn't had a vote.
Regardless of the "group of 14" who colluded to stop a Senate rules change to eliminate the judicial filibuster, the President's nominees have a right to a hearing before the Senate. If the Senate won't give it to them, he should just put them on the bench during recesses.
Now, why would I be angry about Roberts? Easy, he was only just nominated, and the course of the Senate hasn't been decided. The Senate should have sufficient time, say 3 months, to get their work done. Then if the obstructionists decide they need to block the nomination some how, then the President should work unilaterally to appoint his nominee.
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:28 PM
0Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home