Deep Thoughts and Observations by Ken
President Bush today used a recess appointment to install John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate Democrats had been using stalling tactics to indefinitely delay his confirmation. There were enough votes in the Senate to confirm him if it were not for the underhanded tactics of the Democrats. President Bush was right in putting Bolton in his rightful place at the UN.



Senate Democrats obviously were not at all pleased by the move.



Harry Reid of Nevada the Senate Minority Leader was quoted as saying "seriously flawed and weakened candidate." He charged that Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment.



Sen. Ted Kennedy said . "It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N," Kennedy said."



These protests by Democrats ring hollow when you consider that these same Democrats defended every one of President Bill Clinton’s recess appointments.



I don’t recall Ted Kennedy criticizing President Clinton's "evading constitutional requirements”, or attack the credibility of his nominees? Harry Reid never accused Bill Clinton of “Stonewalling the Senate” when the former President used the same tactics. What about the Democrats evading constitutional requirements when they require a 60 vote majority to confirm judges when the Constitution clearly requires a simple majority?



To participate in my online poll go to my other blog at Oblogatory Anecdotes http://brutus1964.blogspot.com

Comments
on Aug 01, 2005
These protests by Democrats ring hollow


no more hollow than your ranting which totally ignores the fact republicans did the same thing and will do it again when they find it necessary.

What about the Democrats evading constitutional requirements when they require a 60 vote majority to confirm judges when the Constitution clearly requires a simple majority?


which constitution would that be? not the one on which us government is based. unless of course you can provide the part that says (or even suggests) the senate's power to "determine the rules of its proceedings" doesn't apply to confirmation hearings.
on Aug 02, 2005
thats what happens in Republic , democracy is threatened by dicator in power
on Aug 02, 2005
thats what happens in Republic , democracy is threatened by dicator in power


There is no dictator in power.

If democrats would just let a vote be taken, then these actions won't be necessary.
on Aug 02, 2005
If democrats would just let a vote be taken, then these actions won't be necessary.


Dude, I am with you that Bush has the power to do it, but you don't think there isn't a little presidentail nose-thumbing going on here.

You can almost here it: "Nyah-Nyah I got my way anyway!"

Question: Can he do that with Roberts?

IG


on Aug 02, 2005

The dictator will do as he wish and enforce is will in a republic because he as the power to do so , in a democracy , in America , the leader of the country will follow the will and need of the people and defend them against those who wish them harm may they be internally or externally.
on Aug 02, 2005

A leader will lead the way and say and do what he preachs and will have the well behing of his follower above is own. A dictator will not explain is point and will not be followed by anyone , he will impose is view on all others because he as the power to dictate. Its not about dem vs rep , its about sending someone to represent the US in the "new" shape up of the UN. When you are dealing among equals if you go in insulting everybody else you end up at the end of the negociation with much less then what you had before and with nothing of what you wanted at all. If the President whas right in his belief that the UN is irrelevant , then why is he appointing anyone there in the first place he should remove the US from the UN all togheter and stop begging others to join in Irak , and show the world he whas right all along and that the US can do everything alone and dont need the UN at all and send the clear message that the UN needs to be rebuilt and not include the US at all because neither the UN whant or need the US , and the US dont need the UN , its not like the US is part of the UN or one of its "participating" member anyway , the current UN serve no purpose at all.
on Aug 02, 2005
Perhaps the President is not interested in simply considering the UN irrelevant. I believe it is accepted that the UN needs some improvement.
How so?
Start by following the rules, regulations, laws agreed upon and avoid allowing those special exceptions to render such things meaningless.
I would expect Bolton to be much more effective than people think. Is it insulting to call someone out who has been saying one thing and
doing the exact opposite in plain view? It may seem crude and obnoxious and undiplomatic - what is the alternative and how far to you go
to appease that someone?

Hey! maybe the UN isn't the only place this might work.
on Aug 02, 2005
Thank you. I am very honored to have a featured article. Cool Beans! (c8
on Aug 06, 2005
unless of course you can provide the part that says (or even suggests) the senate's power to "determine the rules of its proceedings" doesn't apply to confirmation hearings.


I strongly suspect that since the Constitution explicitly states the simple majority requirement for confirmation of Supreme Court Justices, the SC would consider that a specific restraint on the Senate's power to "determine the rules of its proceedings."

Cheers,
Daiwa
Meta
Views
» 1966
Comments
» 9
Category
Sponsored Links