Thy hypocricy is almost nauseating.

[Joe DeFuria]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115339,00.html

It's funny watching the democrats trying to diffuse the monster they created...

 

[epicstruggle]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115339,00.html

It's funny watching the democrats trying to diffuse the monster they created...

Quite interesting, I believe this can and should be used to show how out of touch the dems are to the american people.

 

[Ty]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115339,00.html

It's funny watching the democrats trying to diffuse the monster they created...

Quite interesting, I believe this can and should be used to show how out of touch the dems are to the american people.

It's funny how BOTH sides are abusing their power, not just the Dems. Furthermore it's funny how out of touch YOU are if you think only the Dems look bad in this case.

 

[Babel-17]

IMO the following quote from the article virtually screams for details. Wouldn't the historical context be useful and relevant?

The Senate has approved the vast majority of President Bush's nominees, but six have been blocked by Democrats. Two were later appointed by Bush during congressional recesses, a maneuver that is supposed to be reserved for an emergency, but has occasionally been used by administrations as a way to avoid a Senate confirmation vote.

I added the bold.

 

[Babel-17]

Hmm, I'm trying to get some info on the quote I posted. So far I've found this.

"At no point has a president ever used recess appointments to install a rejected nominee onto the federal bench, and there are intimations there will be even more recess appointments in the coming months," Daschle said. "These actions not only poison the nomination process, but they strike at the heart of the principle of checks and balances."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28086-2004Mar26.html

(Registration required)

If Daschle is telling the truth then the story from Fox has IMO sought to mislead by leaving out an important detail.

I readily concede the irony of placing the name "Daschle" in the same sentence with the word "truth".

 

[epicstruggle]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115339,00.html

It's funny watching the democrats trying to diffuse the monster they created...

Quite interesting, I believe this can and should be used to show how out of touch the dems are to the american people.

It's funny how BOTH sides are abusing their power, not just the Dems. Furthermore it's funny how out of touch YOU are if you think only the Dems look bad in this case.

You must believe in the boggey man and santa claus, because you see things that dont exist. Where in my post do I say "if you think only the Dems look bad in this case". I cant believe you actually misunderstood a 1 line comment from me. But i guess i cant expect too much from you. The fact that the dems could use this also as an issue is up to them, not me and the reps.
your comment deserves a big:

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

IMO the following quote from the article virtually screams for details. Wouldn't the historical context be useful and relevant?

The Senate has approved the vast majority of President Bush's nominees, but six have been blocked by Democrats. Two were later appointed by Bush during congressional recesses, a maneuver that is supposed to be reserved for an emergency, but has occasionally been used by administrations as a way to avoid a Senate confirmation vote.

I added the bold.

Both sides are playing the political game here.

I remember all the Dem arguments about filibustering and how "hey, it's an official process for a reason, we have every right to exploit it". At the same time, the Republicans were saying what an abuse it was. Now the roles are completely reversed.

However, the only real "unprecedented" thing that occurred...is the Dems taking a stance that they won't pass ANYONE. There is no historical context for that.

 

[Natoma]

I have to agree with you epic now that you've clarified. Nowhere did you say you weren't talking about the republicans. OTOH, you did only say that the dems were out of touch with the american public, soooooo.... I guess Ty drew his conclusions from that.

 

[Natoma]

However, the only real "unprecedented" thing that occurred...is the Dems taking a stance that they won't pass ANYONE. There is no historical context for that.

Eh?

The Senate has approved the vast majority of President Bush's nominees, but six have been blocked by Democrats.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

However, the only real "unprecedented" thing that occurred...is the Dems taking a stance that they won't pass ANYONE. There is no historical context for that.

Eh?

The Senate has approved the vast majority of President Bush's nominees, but six have been blocked by Democrats.

Natoma, did you read the first article? The one this thread is based on?

As a response to Bush putting through a couple nominees through recess appointment, the Dems have promised to block all white house nominees going forward.

 

[Natoma]

I read it. Yes, in response to Bush using his powers to push through rejected judicial officials during senate recess.

Democrats blocking all of Bush's attempted appointments from now on in response to Bush's maneuvering is no more unprecedented than Bush going out of the scope of normal historical use of a president's powers to appoint judges in cases of emergency.

Why did I say "Eh?" Two fold. One is because the senate has actually passed most of Bush's appointees. The other is because Bush was the one to overstep historical precedence in order to ramrod his wishes through.

Not even Clinton went that far, and the republican dominated congress derailed a hell of a lot of his appointees.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I read it. Yes, in response to Bush using his powers to push through rejected judicial officials during senate recess.

Democrats blocking all of Bush's attempted appointments from now on in response to Bush's maneuvering is no more unprecedented than Bush going out of the scope of normal historical use of a president's powers to appoint judges in cases of emergency.

...which is a response to the Senate Judiciat committee abusing it's power to not bring votes to the floor when by all counts there were enough votes to pass the nominees through.

Define "emergency?"

And BTW, the folks he pushed through were not voted down by the Senate, they never reached the floor because the Judiciary Committee simply refused to bring them up.

 

[Natoma]

I read it. Yes, in response to Bush using his powers to push through rejected judicial officials during senate recess.

Democrats blocking all of Bush's attempted appointments from now on in response to Bush's maneuvering is no more unprecedented than Bush going out of the scope of normal historical use of a president's powers to appoint judges in cases of emergency.

...which is a response to the Senate Judiciat committee abusing it's power to not bring votes to the floor when by all counts there were enough votes to pass the nominees through.

Define "emergency?"

And BTW, the folks he pushed through were not voted down by the Senate, they never reached the floor because the Judiciary Committee simply refused to bring them up.

Is that an abuse Joe? The republicans did that to Clinton during his 8 years as well. Or is it only an abuse because it's happening to Bush now? :?

I would personally define "emergency" if the members of the senate judiciary were killed or incapacitated, for instance a terrorist attack takes them out and not enough time has passed in order to get new appointees to the committee in. I would not define "emergency" as a holiday recess.

But c'est la vie.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Is that an abuse Joe? The republicans did that to Clinton during his 8 years as well. Or is it only an abuse because it's happening to Bush now? :?

Is bush appointing judges during recess an abuse? Clinton did that as well. What "emergency" were Clinton's nominees based on?

I would personally define "emergency" if the members of the senate judiciary were killed or incapacitated, for instance a terrorist attack takes them out and not enough time has passed in order to get new appointees to the committee in. I would not define "emergency" as a holiday recess.

So, how do you explain Clinton's appointments?

 

[Natoma]

Why are you asking me? You're the one complaining about no historical context and actions being unprecedented when it's obvious that it isn't.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Good for them, I'm glad someone at least is trying to get the president to be accountable to someone.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Why are you asking me? You're the one complaining about no historical context and actions being unprecedented when it's obvious that it isn't.

I said no one ever threatened / promised to withhold all judicial nominees. That IS unprecented.

A president putting through nominees as a recess appointment in a "non-emergency", is NOT unprecedented. Of course, as I said, this is dependent on the definition of "emergency." I'd wager Clinton's appointments don't meet your stated definition, therefore what Bush did is not unprecedented.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Why are you asking me? You're the one complaining about no historical context and actions being unprecedented when it's obvious that it isn't.

I said no one ever threatened / promised to withhold all judicial nominees. That IS unprecented.

A president putting through nominees as a recess appointment in a "non-emergency", is NOT unprecedented. Of course, as I said, this is dependent on the definition of "emergency." I'd wager Clinton's appointments don't meet your stated definition, therefore what Bush did is not unprecedented.

So it's unprecedented, that don't make it wrong.

 

[Natoma]

Clinton used it twice, one of which was because Roger Gregory was being held up in the confirmation proceedings for 4 years, in no small part due to Jesse Helms using his filibuster to block Gregory's appointment. Helms filibustered 3 other appointments during the 90s, and they all happened to be black, along with Roger Gregory. We all know Helms's history as an avowed racist. He defeated black democrat Harvey Gant in 1990 when he ran that political ad against him saying "You needed that job. You deserved that job. But they gave it to a minority. Take your country back. Vote Jesse Helms," so these tactics and motivation aren't exactly unfounded. He used similar tactics in his 1996 re-election campaign.

My personal definition of emergency would not fit this situation, but obviously Clinton thought it did, and he used it sparingly as well, which means that in his definition of emergency, Roger Gregory, and his other recess appointment, Bill Lann Lee, fit the situation. Which is why I ended my post with "But c'est la vie," because that goes for my own personal take on the matter.

Bush has used this tactic at least 2 times in the last 3 years, with statements that more is to come. The apparent intent? To use this not as an emergency tactic, but as status quo for all future appointments. That is unprecedented in terms of historical scope. Clinton never went that far.

Either way I don't really care. Both sides are crying foul when it's obvious that both sides are escalating this. Everyone is saying "he did this. she did this" when both sides are taking historical precedents by letter of law and deed and staying within them, but taking the spirit and intent of such laws and deeds and abusing them.

[EDIT]Sorry it was Jesse Helms, not Strom Thurmond. Don't know why Thurmond's name was in my mind.[/EDIT]

[EDIT 2]I mistook the recess appointments on whitehouse.gov for judicial appointments. There have been at least 6 non-judicial recess appointees, but 2 judicial so far.[/EDIT 2]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Clinton used it twice, one of which was because Roger Gregory was being held up in the confirmation proceedings for 4 years, in no small part due to Jesse Helms using his filibuster to block Gregory's appointment.

Um, sounds awfully familiar. Bush is using it because certain nominees have been held up.

My personal definition of emergency would not fit this situation, but obviously Clinton thought it did...

And obviously Bush thinks it does here. I've heard him refer to the current situation (judicial vacancies) as "Emergency" several times

and he used it sparingly as well, which means that in his definition of emergency, Roger Gregory, and his other recess appointment, Bill Lann Lee, fit the situation.

Bush hasn't used it as sparingly?

Bush has used this tactic at least 6 times in the last 3 years, with statements that more is to come.

Um, no. Bush has used it exactly twice.

Either way I don't really care. Both sides are crying foul when it's obvious that both sides are escalating this.

Right....and my point is, the Dems are escalating this to the point never done before...threatenting to halt nominees altogether.