Thy hypocricy is almost nauseating.

[RussSchultz]

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

Rejected eh?

And here I thought that they hadn't been allowed to get a vote.

And, for your information, recess appointments are temporary. The appointee must be confirmed at a later date. The process of recess appointment doesn't undermine ANY check/balance, it simply prevents a partisan minority from denying an appointee candidate their confirmation vote.

 

[Natoma]

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

Rejected eh?

And here I thought that they hadn't been allowed to get a vote.

And, for your information, recess appointments are temporary. The appointee must be confirmed at a later date. The process of recess appointment doesn't undermine ANY check/balance, it simply prevents a partisan minority from denying an appointee candidate their confirmation vote.

Rejected by the judicial committee, yes. And uhm, I did say he used his powers. Did I say anywhere that this undermined any check/balance? No, in fact I said that Bush was going out of scope of normal historical use of a president's powers. Not that he's violating any check/balance. I'm glad you read all the way through my posts before responding.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, in fact I said that Bush was going out of scope of normal historical use of a president's powers.

And I told you that he isn't. Putting through two (not 6, as you wrongly claimed) nominees via recess appointment because of what The President sees is an emergency, is not out of scope or historical use of power.

 

[Natoma]

No, in fact I said that Bush was going out of scope of normal historical use of a president's powers.

And I told you that he isn't. Putting through two (not 6, as you wrongly claimed) nominees via recess appointment because of what The President sees is an emergency, is not out of scope or historical use of power.

Clinton did it twice in 8 years, once because an avowed racist was making obvious difficulties in appointing a black judge. That was an emergency to him. However, nowhere have I read that he even hinted at making this a regular practice. Otoh,

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.

Now, I think that bush's intent is going out of scope, and you don't think this is going out of scope. Surprise surprise we disagree. Anything more to say than that? Probably not.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Now, I think that bush's intent is going out of scope, and you don't think this is going out of scope. Surprise surprise we disagree. Anything more to say than that? Probably not.

You will allow for the fact that your "stats" needed to be corrected though, right? (Bush applied it to 2, not 6, nominees, same as Clinton.) Except I haven't seen "these statements" that you refer too where Bush promises more...except in any more situations where Bush feels there is an emergency.

And did Clinton say he wouldn't use recess appointments in the future (after his second one)?

 

[Natoma]

Why would you ask such a question when I corrected the number already, with the explanation of what had happened, in the post in which I brought it up in the first place?

Now, Clinton's first appointment occurred in 1997. The second occurred in December 2000. Pretty doubtful he would have made another one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Now, Clinton's first appointment occurred in 1997. The second occurred in December 2000. Pretty doubtful he would have made another one.

Oh, so he made 2 appointments within 3 years time?

 

[Natoma]

Now, Clinton's first appointment occurred in 1997. The second occurred in December 2000. Pretty doubtful he would have made another one.

Oh, so he made 2 appointments within 3 years time?

Separated by 3 years. Bush's appointments were separated by what, 1 month?

Now if you want to take this tit-for-tat a little further, Clinton made 2 recess appointments in 8 years. Bush has made 2 in 3 years. This isn't a useless exercise, why? :?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Now, Clinton's first appointment occurred in 1997. The second occurred in December 2000. Pretty doubtful he would have made another one.

Oh, so he made 2 appointments within 3 years time?

Separated by 3 years. Bush's appointments were separated by what, 1 month?

Oh, so then we should be expecting one a month then from Bush, is that correct?

Give it up, Natoma. You're honestly trying to convinve someone that Clinton's appointments are somehow different from Bush's?

 

[Natoma]

Why are you trying to make me "give it up?" You're sitting here trying to bait me into some useless argument with you when frankly I just don't care. Most of the stuff you're saying frankly is like digging in a haystack to find some little nugget to start a useless "a ha!" argument, yet again. As I wrote earlier,

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.

And hell, I was the one who said that I know we disagree, and there's really nothing more to say about it than that. But you go ahead and continue to argue if that makes you happy. Maybe you need a hobby or something. :?

p.s.: This sums it up rather succinctly for me,

Separated by 3 years. Bush's appointments were separated by what, 1 month?

Now if you want to take this tit-for-tat a little further, Clinton made 2 recess appointments in 8 years. Bush has made 2 in 3 years. This isn't a useless exercise, why? :?

To put it bluntly, I'm sorry Joe. I just don't have the strength anymore for these multi-page useless back and forth "no one is right" arguments.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Why are you trying to make me "give it up?" You're sitting here trying to bait me into some useless argument with you when frankly I just don't care.

No, you've just been trying to cover up mistakes which puts a complete hole in your supposed argument.

And hell, I was the one who said that I know we disagree, and there's really nothing more to say about it than that. But you go ahead and continue to argue if that makes you happy. Maybe you need a hobby or something. :?

(Maybe the one who keeps responding needs a hobby?)

To put it bluntly, I'm sorry Joe. I just don't have the strength anymore for these multi-page useless back and forth "no one is right" arguments.

Because you haven't refuted the fact that what the dems are doing is unprecendented, which is my point. All you can do is try and build some story that "well, maybe, if you look at it through partisan glasses, what Bush is doing is also unprecendented". Whereas any reasonable person would conclude that a couple recess appointments made during one's administration is hardly unprecedented.

 

[ninelven]

edited