Presidential Picks Deserve a Vote

WSJ ^ | Apr 20, 2009 | WALTER DELLINGER

[zaphod3000]

On the eve of George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001, I cautioned fellow Democrats against "delaying or denying confirmation of nominees to cabinet and subcabinet posts." I argued on these pages that blocking executive nominees would weaken the presidency and be counterproductive for the opposition: "If a president cannot promptly place his chosen people in key offices, he can hardly be held fully responsible for the missteps of the administration."

In the past few years, many Republican senators have agreed, saying that it is unacceptable to filibuster a nominee submitted to the Senate for its "advice and consent." Some Republicans have gone further than I would, asserting that filibusters of presidential nominations are unconstitutional.

I was therefore taken aback by recent speculation that Republicans might filibuster two of President Barack Obama's key nominees: Dawn Johnsen, to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and Harold Koh, to be legal adviser to the State Department.

In the past, Republican senators have publicly asserted that it is either "unacceptable" or "unconstitutional" to filibuster an up-or-down vote of a nominee submitted by the president for Senate "advice and consent." I cannot believe they would now abandon that principle.

SNIP

Whether Republicans or Democrats are in office, the loyal opposition should not frustrate a president's ability to execute the powers of his office by denying an up-or-down vote to executive-branch nominees.

[1rudeboy]

Oh, do please shut up, Mr. Dellinger.

[Political Junkie Too]

The problem is, when the Democrats do it the response is "Tsk, tsk, tsk, what can we do about it?" When Republicans do it, it's "You shouldn't do it, you'd be hypocritical to do it, you're better than that."

But the end is still the same, Democrats get their picks and Republican's don't.

-PJ