Hey, no problemo. Both are interesting articles.
I just posted this link in another thread, so apologies to anyone who has already seen it. It’s an analysis of the US Supreme Court decision so probably of interest to “Ashcroft” readers too. This was the most interesting analysis I’ve read so far.
It’s happened before (i.e. Poppy Bush’s nomination of John Tower at Defense). But I agree it won’t this time; it doesn’t seem as if Ashcroft has made so many personal enemies who would be glad for revenge.
How is Bush “mending fences” etc. by pushing such a divisive nominee to the post where ideology matters MOST? Unless the fences he’s mending are with his right-wing base, as several have noted. The opposition from moderates is not only expected but required.
Re the recess appointment, please acknowledge the circumstances of the huge number of judicial nominees that Lott has kept bottled up for multiple YEARS without a vote, waiting for a GOP President to send more conservatives his way. This particular seat has been vacant for TEN YEARS. Given that there was no way Lott was ever going to allow the full Senate to even vote (how’s THAT for our democratic republic in action?), this action seems to have been not ony required but overdue.
I am fully aware that Clinton’s action will force the vote to finally occur, and that Lott (and Bush?) will have to deal with it. I really don’t have a problem with Clinton forcing Bush and the GOP right wing to deal with all such hot potato issues he can come up with, under these circumstances.
Ashcroft does not believe in laws that he would be sworn to uphold. He’d have discretion not to act to enforce them. Damn straight that’s disqualifying.
Please explain how you believe “whose guy won” should settle matters of law. Even if you’re claiming that political opposition from a significan segment should invalidate matters of law, please look more closely at the voting results before making the claim. Following the principle you espouse is a formula for national disintegration, not just the debasement of the rule of law.
I trust you’ll admit that your own views are not “universal truths” either - they’re as subject to challenge and examination as those you oppose.
I don’t see how AG is the position in which “ideology matters most”. Opposition to the Ashcroft appointment seems to center on the concern that he will fail to prosecute the law of this country, an unlikely scenario. By contrast, the Secretaries of HHS, HUD and the like, which are responsible for implementing social policy, would seem to be more sensitive to ideological position.
I think it is unrealistic to expect Bush, as a Republican president, to competely exclude conservatives from the cabinet, as it would have been unrealistic to expect Clinton (of moderate Democratic background) to completely exclude liberals. For this reason I have always felt that those who focus completely on the political candidate while ignoring party affiliation are missing an important point.
I am vaguely aware that there has been a large backlog of presidential appointments during the Clinton years. But I would suggest that this is more than simply the Republican’s doing. Another president facing a congress controlled by the opposition might be more willing to compromise on the nature of his appointments, and chose people who are slightly more amenable to the opposition. Clinton has chosen to fight it out with tactics such as these.
(This has been a hallmark of the Clinton presidency. He has been the master of the political battle, but has won his battles at the expense of antagonising his enemies, leaving him with less in the way of real accomplishment).