It is currently 03/29/24 12:50 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/10 4:14 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I'm pleased with this ~ I just wish it had gone further ~ I believe any prez is entitled to appoint staff of his [and maybe one day, her] choosing ~ while I understand the confirmation process, I don't believe the process should be subject to filibusters or holds, unless there are significant issues with the specific candidate ~ any candidate who makes it thru committee with no or limited negatives should be entitled to an up-or-down vote ~ well beyond time for the Rs to stop putting party before country just because they can ~ Sooz

WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS TO OBSTRUCTIONISM WITH SIX RECESS APPOINTMENTS.... James Cole spent 13 years as Justice Department official, and is an accomplished attorney. When President Obama nominated him to be the deputy attorney general -- the second highest-ranking position in the department, effectively Justice's chief operating officer -- few questioned Cole's qualifications or abilities.

But conservative Republicans didn't like him. In particular, Cole had criticized Bush/Cheney's dubious national security tactics after 9/11, which drew GOP ire. Cole earned the support of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his nomination languished, waiting for a floor vote since July, the longest delay in history for a deputy AG nominee. The GOP decided it wasn't enough to oppose Cole; it had to stop the Senate from voting at all.

Yesterday, the White House got tired of waiting.

Quote:

President Obama said Wednesday that he intended to install six appointees -- including James Cole, his controversial pick for the No. 2 spot at the Justice Department -- while Congress is in recess. The move will allow them to serve without confirmation by the Senate, where their prospects will only grow dimmer once Republicans gain strength in January.

Mr. Obama, who is vacationing here on the island of Oahu with his family, made the announcement via news release, without any explanation or comment, other than to say that the posts have "been left vacant for an extended period of time."

All six nominees -- Cole, four ambassadors, and the official who runs the Government Printing Office -- had the support of a Senate majority, but were blocked from receiving up-or-down votes.

Also of note is the president's decision to appoint Robert Ford, a career diplomat, as the U.S. ambassador to Syria, a position that has been vacant since 2005. Republicans didn't object to Ford, per se, but didn't want the post filled at all. The administration insisted that having an ambassador to Syria was integral to U.S. diplomacy in the region.

In the larger context, Obama has shown considerable, almost frustrating, restraint when it comes to recess appointments -- these six bring his total to 28 -- in the face of a nominating process that has become paralyzed by unprecedented obstructionism. Indeed, the president could have been even more ambitious in this new announcement -- there were 73 other administration nominees waiting for Senate floor votes who were denied confirmation and will have to be re-nominated.

I mention this, of course, because Senate Republicans are likely to throw a fit over these six appointments. It's important that they realize that they broke this system, and left the White House with very little choice. The confirmation process wasn't designed to work this way; it didn't use to work this way; and it's simply can't work this way. The executive branch needs to function, and it can't if key, high-ranking posts remain vacant because Republicans are unhappy about losing an election.

As is always the case with recess appointments, these six officials will be able to serve for one year, at which point they'll either have to step down or go through the Senate confirmation process again.

Either way, I'm glad to see Obama use this power available to him. I've generally frowned on recess appointments, in part because the process is too easily abused, but under the circumstances, it's become a necessary response to a very different kind of abuse at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM December 30, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_12/027309.php


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/10 5:46 am • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Only six?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/10 8:58 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
good for him. hope he does more.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/30/10 11:45 am • # 4 
So do I.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/10 1:02 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Oh BOO HOO ~ if the Rs won't act like responsible adults, then I applaud and support treating them like the spoiled children their behavior most closely resembles ~ Sooz

THE PREDICTABLE RECESS-APPOINTMENT COMPLAINTS.... With the White House announcing six new recess appointments late yesterday, it was only a matter of time before Republicans began complaining. What I was curious to see, however, is what they came up with.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin took a crack at it this morning. (via Memeorandum)

Quote:

On Wednesday, Obama shed any pretense of bipartisanship in making six recess appointments. As were his previous recess appointments, this batch included two individuals whose records are so controversial that they could not obtain confirmation even with 59 Democratic senators.

Hmm. Let's unpack this a bit.

President Obama nominated six qualified officials to fill a variety of executive branch vacancies. These nominations were considered in the respective Senate committees, and approved by committee members. If brought to the floor, each of the six would have been confirmed, most with more than 60 votes. (When Rubin claims they were too "controversial" to "obtain confirmation," this has no relation to reality. She's simply wrong.)

Knowing this, conservative Republicans, who've engaged in obstructionist tactics unseen in American history, placed anonymous holds on the nominees. They could have simply voted against the nominees and urged their colleagues to follow suit, but that wasn't good enough -- Republicans had to shut down the advise-and-consent process altogether.

This, in turn, left the president with a choice: (a) leave the positions vacant until a Senate minority agreed to let the chamber vote up or down; or (b) fill the vacancies with qualified nominees who enjoyed the support of a Senate majority. He wisely chose the latter.

I am intrigued, though, by the notion of "partisanship" as a criticism from a partisan. Let me see if I have this straight -- when Republicans engage in obstructionism, breaking down the confirmation process, that's fine. When the president exercises the power available to him to circumvent this obstructionism, that's "shedding any pretense of bipartisanship"?

It's almost as if Obama is allowed to be affected by institutional abuses, but he's not allowed to respond. There's nothing wrong with political pugilism, just so long as Obama realizes he's not supposed to punch back.

That's quite a standard.

Rubin's piece goes on to make arguments against some of the six officials to receive recess appointments -- again, opponents could have made these arguments on the floor and tried to defeat the nominations as part of the traditional confirmation process -- before wrapping up with an especially interesting point.

Quote:

What, if anything, can be done by the imperious recess appointments of such controversial nominees? Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation emails me, "The real threat (which Robert C. Byrd famously did once) is for the entire GOP caucus" to refuse to consent to any further nominees unless Obama agrees to refrain from issuing more recess appointments. Gaziano says that Republicans "could refuse to confirm another judge, diplomat, etc. until they extract their promise."

Fascinating. Note Rubin's use of the word "imperious" to describe a legal process used by George W. Bush more than 170 times.

Let's appreciate exactly what's being proposed here.

Every president since George Washington has used recess appointments; it's a power explicitly given to the president in the Constitution. Rubin and Gaziano, however, envision yet another hostage scenario -- the White House would have to commit to the Republican Senate minority that the president won't exercise his own authority or the GOP will simply refuse allow any nominees to receive any votes to any office for any reason.

The president might not be inclined to pay such a ransom. Of course, if he resists, I'm sure conservative bloggers will be there to insist the White House has "shed any pretense of bipartisanship."

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM December 30, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027316.php


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/10 1:50 pm • # 6 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Didn't hear any pissing and moaning from the Repugs when Da Shrub made recess appointments.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/30/10 4:28 pm • # 7 
Cons have selective memory. You have to understand that they are the party of 'personal responsibility' but they never take any responsibility for any negative outcome that stems from their political stand.

Bipartisanship is as much bullshit as the old 'free market' slogan.

The democrats should have cut the republicans off at the knees. Instead they moaned and groaned while the GOP blocked a great deal of their initiatives.

My view is that you don't whine about the bully. You beat the shit out of him.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.