Filibuster? WHat filibuster?

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The Dems are crying foul over his Constitutional use of power while they filibuster an Ambassador nomination. Finally, somebody is doing something.

WASHINGTON -- Administration officials say President Bush is preparing to use constitutional powers rarely employed for major appointments to bypass the Senate and install _ if only temporarily _ John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Click to expand...

Washington Post

An important part of the story
Investigations ended with no proof of improper actions.
Click to expand...
 
The Senate had their chance to put him up for an up or down vote and they failed to do their jobs. The Democrats are attempting to get around the Constitution when they intentionally prevent nominees from reaching the floor for a legitimate vote of yes or no.

Ted Kennedy said:
"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said of the Bolton appointment. "It's bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess. 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."
Click to expand...


When Kennedy speaks of abuse of power, a cloak of secrecy, stonewalling, and deviousness is he talking about when Clintoon was in the White House??

You know, they really shouldn't whine about the results of not doing their jobs. Losers.
 
So Washington is dissecting the Constitution and bastardizing it for its own purposes. What else is new?

I say we send Pauly Shore as ambassador. It'd give him something to do, and send the proper message to the UN at the same time.
 
The Dems use the fillibuster. The Prez uses a constitutional loophole. Politics. I don't see the big deal.
 
rrfield said:
The Dems use the fillibuster. The Prez uses a constitutional loophole. Politics. I don't see the big deal.
Click to expand...

Excuse to piss and moan about the "bad guys."
 
Bolton's appointment just shows how usless the Democrats are. They'd rather play their psyc games because they haven't gotten over losing the election to Bush. :crying4: Cry your little hearts out, Libs.
 
chcr said:
Excuse to piss and moan about the "bad guys."
Click to expand...

Both sides are doing a "good" job, that's for sure.

The Other One said:
Bolton's appointment just shows how usless the Democrats are. They'd rather play their psyc games because they haven't gotten over losing the election to Bush. Cry your little hearts out, Libs.
Click to expand...

What's it say about the power the majority party has, that the Prez has to install an ambassador in a way that has never been done before? Judges have been appointed this way before, but never an ambassador, to my knowledge.

Wasn't the GOP the party that bitched about legal, yet rarely (if ever) used tactics earlier this year?

The Dems and the GOP have to work together to get things done. Filibusters and back-door appointments will only fuel more bitterness and resentment.
 
I used to be quite partisan. Now I'm less so. I finally figured out that they're all bastards.

I say if we're gonna end up with a president or other elected official that we all hate, why not start out that way and thereby bypass the disappointment?

Hence:




Fran Drescher in 2008! :lloyd:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Fran Drescher in 2008! :lloyd:
Click to expand...
: puke:

Ya trying to make me lose my lunch, issat it?

Why not too PeeWee Hermaphrodite as Pres and Micheal Jackoff as his VP....really scare the third world :)
 
The Other One said:
Bolton's appointment just shows how usless the Democrats are. They'd rather play their psyc games because they haven't gotten over losing the election to Bush. :crying4: Cry your little hearts out, Libs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. If they had a single legitimate reason to stop Bolton from being confirmed we'd have heard it long ago. I don't particularly like the guy, but doubt that that alone will keep him from doing the job. ;) As I've said time and again though, if the situation were reversed the reactions would be indistinguishable.

I think it's laughable that they seem to keep expecting non-conservative appointees.
 
both sides have been using filibusters for decades.

I agree it is a stall tactic. However, it more then hypocritical to only draw attention to it when it does work in favor of a particular party. A similar debate took place about the electoral college system when bush won office the first time.
 
The Democrats are reduced to "I'm going to hold my breath until you stop saying these names!"
~ John Stewart, Daily Show, August 2, 2005.
 
rrfield said:
What's it say about the power the majority party has, that the Prez has to install an ambassador in a way that has never been done before? Judges have been appointed this way before, but never an ambassador, to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

It says the President is using the power given to him by Article 2 section 2 of the Constitution because whiney Liberal Democrats are still crying about losing the past 2 elections in a row to G.W. Bush:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."


President Clinton: 140 recess appointments over two terms. Among them:

_Former Sen. Wyche Fowler, D-Ga., ambassador to Saudi Arabia, August 1996. Put in the post two months after a bombing that killed 19 American soldiers stationed there, he received Senate confirmation in October 1997 and served until March 2001.

_James Hormel, ambassador to Luxembourg, June 1999. A gay philanthropist whose nomination was blocked by Senate Republicans, he remained ambassador until near the end of Clinton's term.
Click to expand...
 
rrfield said:
The Dems use the fillibuster. The Prez uses a constitutional loophole. Politics. I don't see the big deal.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the recess appointment is allowed under the Constitution. The filibuster isn't.
 
Section. 5. Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

They get to make their own rules. The filibuster has been used for a long time, mostly since the 1850's. I thought conservatives were all for tradition?
 
TOO, the first of the Clinton examples you gave is exactly what the recess appointment was inteded for...when someone needs to be in that possition now for one reason or another. The second is, IMO, more similar to what Bush did. The opposing party simply doesn't like something about the guy, be he gay or an asshole, so they block him. The Prez says "I can do you one better" and appoints him anyway. Legal, yes, but not in the spirit of the law.
 
rrfield said:
Section. 5. Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

They get to make their own rules. The filibuster has been used for a long time, mostly since the 1850's. I thought conservatives were all for tradition?
Click to expand...

Article II Section 2 Clause 3:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Click to expand...

His power is expressly given. Theirs is made up. Yes, it's tradition. No I don't agree with it. Never have much cared for the filibuster.

If the votes aren't (or are) there, you lose. That's a democratic tradition. Filibustering is for whiners.
 
Gonz said:
No I don't agree with it. Never have much cared for the filibuster.
Click to expand...

There are lots of things not in the constitution that you, I, and others don't agree with. Just ask SnP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top