Posted on 10/10/2005 2:18:19 PM PDT by MNJohnnie
But it IS the President jamming something down the Senate's throat. And in 2007, with a track record, the confirmation process is different.
Why is the President willing to risk recess appointment for UN ambassador, but not SCOTUS?
The older judge Pickering bowed out rather than go through a recess appointment for that very reason.
This nomination is timid. Chicken. Go along / get along. At best.
BIG BOOMIN' BUMP!
Any recess appointment this year expires in January 2007. Comparing a UN Ambassador appointment to a SCOTUS appointment is just ignorant. What good will it do to turn SCOTUS appointments into short-term picks that the next President gets to select?
You missed the part where I set my hair on fire.
Anyway, my point was that the president has this threat that he could imply. Implyingthe threat might get the Senate to get off the dime. The President could make a bold nomnination in the mold to Fhomas or Scalia, and the Senate would have the hot potato. If the Senate doesn't ratify or reject the nomination, the President can recess appoint. It's a balance of powers thing, but it only works when the powers are exercized.
Dollars to donuts, a recess appointment would be confirmed on the next go around. Bush is still in the driver's set then.
President Bush made a timid pick.
JRB, Owen and others waited four years. The 'Rats would be happy to stall until after the 2008 election. Then you can scream when Hillary or some other atrocity appoints a few more Darth Vader Ginsbergs.
I know one thing. None of these people whining around here now punished the Gang of Seven sufficiently for their unconstitutional filibuster deal. Retribution must be swift and complete. I laugh at stuff like this as I type, because nobody did a damn thing, apparently.
Of course if they had, well then they'd have the paper trail you're looking for. Having accomplished nothing, they now blame President Bush for the results of their own failures.
The GOP controls the Senate. If the Senate stalls a nomination, the President has reasonable justification to recess appoint.
And I'm sure you know that Myers (9th Circuit) has been out of committe since Marh. Boyle since June. Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad in committee since lord knows when, but renominated in February. The Rat's aren't stalling those nominations, The GOP is stalling those nominations.
And the President is not complaining about it.
Then you can scream when Hillary or some other atrocity appoints a few more Darth Vader Ginsbergs.
And that may well be Bush's fault, if "the base" (whatever that is) is not energized by the GOP. That is GOP failure - and the party is entirely responsible for the number of voters it draws.
Well, you at least got me thinking about a recess appointment, but that's assuming a filibuster in the first place. It's sad more wasn't done to provide swift and complete retribution to the Gang of Seven Republicans who gave an unconstitutional filibuster credibility with their agreement with Harry Reid and the other Democrat Senators.
The only way to get around this problem is to viciously shred the mutinees, and let them know that there is no "extraordinary circumstance" which allows an unconstitutional filibuster of the President's nominee:
John McCain AZ
Lindsey Graham SC
Mike DeWine OH
John Warner VA
Lincoln Chafee RI
Susan Collins ME
Olympia Snowe ME
Why aren't the complaining pundits directing their scorn at these people, as well as the Democrats who came up with the charade, like Kennedy, Clinton, and Schumer?
Blaming Bush for the situation the unconstitutional filibuster puts him in is counterproductive.
Having said all that, I doubt that a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee would please Sandra Day O'Connor at all, and she'd know exactly where to direct her anger over her retirement being delayed further - right at the heart of those who came up with the idea.
So instead of a recess appointment I'd rather see all of us unite to bring the filibuster down, disposed of in the trash bin of history where it belongs.
Me too. I've been carping about cloture abuse as the root of this "Miers problem" from day one.
The founders were genius on balance of powers.
It's sad more wasn't done to provide swift and complete retribution to the Gang of Seven Republicans who gave an unconstitutional filibuster credibility with their agreement with Harry Reid and the other Democrat Senators.
The entire body of the Senate, both parties, is avoiding this confrontation. GWB is avoiding this confrontation. That's what pisses me off. ANd it's not for want of material to work with. Myers and Boyle are out of Committee. Where is the cry for getting them votes?
Chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp. Nothing to see here that's for sure.
No one has any idea how many peole asked to NOT be considered. I know that Owens took her name out of the running, and Scalia said that he really didn't want to go through another confirmation hearing (for the CJ position that Roberts now has).
MNJohnnie is correct. The pundits are railing at Bush, but they can provide no evidence that he would have been able to get a paper-trail conservative through the confirmation process with the Senate. The pundits have given the senators a pass, and in my mind by ignoring their part in this problem are being most dishonest.
The president has tried to fulfill every promise he has made. If you are concerned about Social Security, look at the foot-dragging in the Senate. Immigration reform requires more than an executive order; it requires some support from the Senate. Kyl has introduced a bill, but where is it now?
I am sick to death of the punditry acting like they are the arbiters of all things conservative, and that Bush is some sort of dim-bulb chrony-appointing idiot who doesn't care about the Constitution. They have no room to talk.
George Will wouldn't support the nuclear option on the filibuster. Coulter didn't like Roberts and wrote a mocking column about him. Levin was part of the vetting group for Kennedy (who had a paper trail and was considerd a good conservative pick). The National Review thought that Thomas was another Souter. Frum was on record this summer saying Miers was a possible pick and had nothing to say about her lack of qualifications then.
There's the paper trail the pundits have left, and it isn't pretty, is it? It shows that they are NOT infallible, that they can be wrong about nominees, that some don't support any solution that has been suggested, and that they are nothing but a bunch of whiners.
So I am with MNJohnnie. Let's see THEIR record of success. What is THEIR strategy? Put up or shut up, pundits!!
The track record of the *pundits* is the same as that of FReepers who didn't focus energy on defeating the unconstitutional filibuster.
You live, you learn.
* The most powerful hubby on the planet placates the weak neighborhood enemies, ignores his wife and publicly berates her for disloyalty..
It is a myth that a president can jam anything down Congress' throat.
*It is no myth that Bush could have nominated his Hispanic Maid for the SCOTUS and certain "conservatives" would reflexively praise his genius.
This whining about Education Reform and Campaign Finance Reform (which actually worked in Bush's favor) is the most overblown nonsense I've ever seen.
*From Reagan promising to eliminate the Dept of Education, and then expanding it's size, to Bush letting Kennedy write the Ed Bill is, I guess, nothing for conservatives to note as a betrayal. Just keep repeating the Rush Kool-Aid Mantra, "We are winning."
As to CFR, that was only a violation of the Constitutuion. No big deal..
Your dogmatism in politics will guarantee that you will be always be disappointed. Politics is the art of the possible; this Harriett Miers nomination is indicative of that.
* A realist will always be disappointed with politics. He will also refuse to lie to himself that black is white.
He made the argument that the use of cloture to avoid voting on a nominee is constitutional. The fulcrum for his argument is "it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted." and "the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032105.asp
George Will has reached the wrong conclusion. What cloture abuse does is shift the balance of powers between the Senate and the President. That shift is between the "offices," and if acquiesced to, becomes the new norm. It is not conservative to shift the balance of powers without amending the Constitution.
The literal language of the Constitution does not mandate the Senate to hear impeachment trials, the literal language is "The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments." Under a literal read, the Senate could refuse to have impeachment trials. I won't label that "unconstitutional;," but it would mark a shift in the balance of powers between the House and the Senate.
Mr. Will likewise overextends the phrase "may determine the rules of its proceedings" by failing to grasp the limiting nature of the words "its proceedings." The Constitution doesn't say the Senate can change balance of powers - it says they can monkey with their own business - its proceedings.
The GOP has conceded cloture abuse as a legitimate tool in the case of nominations. That makes them "not conservatives" in my book, on that point.
The lack of grasp and passion on this subject is a big disappointment to me. The nature of judicial nominations, the nature of our public dialog has been altered, to the detriment of conservatism, by permitting cloture abuse to exist without no passionate objection.
Excellent point.
They all have the staffs necessary to get 50 Republican senators (and Dick Cheney for 51 votes) to declare themselves certain backers of the nuclear option IF the Dems filibuster a "blue-blood" conservative appointed to the Scotus bench by Bush.
They can not do it.
There are already at least 7 on record saying they will not absolutely commit to the nuclear option as a judicial filibuster buster.
And there are probably more than that.
It's put up or shut up time for them.
To disagree is fine, but to disagree with the same format as the libs is disgraceful.
Just keep this fact firmly in mind. Without the real conservatives, the Republican Party is a big LOSER. Without Ronald Reagan and his descendants, it would be the perpetual minority party of George Michals and Everett Dirksen days...40 years in the wilderness. The Republican Party can't afford to turn off the conservative base or it can kiss its future goodbye. Conservatives don't have to vote Democrat. They are big enough to form their own party now.
Antonin Scalia didn't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.