Remember when the president used to listen to Congress? No, not this president; I’m talking about many of the other guys who had the job before this jackass did.
What the hell is this? Is this just Bush’s way of letting Congress know that their opinions only mean something if they happen to agree with him? Christ, even under previous presidents whom I disliked I’ve never said that I was embarrassed to be an American, but that’s different now. That my president can do this kind of shit is shameful, and I’m embarrassed for my republic.
Go to hell, Bush. History will remember you and your imperious fiats.
Since there is a Republican majority in Congress, only a great fool would listen to the majority. Everyone already knows that Bush is a great fool, so this is just more icing on the cake.
So the majority of Cognress supports this guy, but he got filibustered. Now, if one believes the Democrats were just being obstructive, I can see the recess appointment as a legitimate remedy. But if one thinks for a second that they may have legitimate concerns about the fellow - this does seem to undercut any pretense of listening to Congress.
Based on what I’ve been reading in the media, I would be concerned about giving this dweeb any position of power - then again, it’s not like the UN does much anyway.
Did it come to a vote so we could find out? Weren’t there reservations about the guy on both sides of the aisle.
That said, I’m very disappointed. I heard too many :dubious: things about the guy to make me think that he’s not the best possible guy for the job. He also looks like Merlin from The Sword in the Stone.
Now, a clever man would listen to the minority, because he would know that only a great fool would approve what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the candidate in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the candidate in front of me.
In short, many of those other guys used them, and used them in controversial ways. Clinton made 140 recess appointments. Reagan made 243. Kennedy was able to get Thurgood Marshall onto the federal bench over the objections of segregationists by using a recess appointment.
So I’m inclined to just chalk this up as more political maneuvering, given this long history, and not read a grave constitutional crisis into it.
A simple majority shouldn’t be the end-all of decision making processes.
That said, the whole Bolton nomination flap was stupid, stupid, stupid. The Democrats shouldn’t have wasted political capital and come out looking like whiny 2-year olds over the nomination of our ambassador to a relatively unimportant organization. We need to start picking our fights better and get over the fact that a Republican administration is going to want to appoint conservatives to government positions.
Because we live in a country where listening to Congress means more than just counting the “ayes” and “nays.” It means paying attention to findings of committees; it means waiting until Congress finishes its investigations of a candidate; and it means, in particular, listening to members that break the partisan party line. Bush did not “listen” in this more meaningful way. (cite)
If only he had been able to get an up or down vote. I have my own reservations about this guy and I don’t like this end run nonsense any more than you do, but you can’t use the “Congress didn’t vote on him” excuse when the Democrat Senators stopped that from happening.
If you believe this so strongly, then you should agree that Bill Lann Lee and James Hormel should not have been appointed to their respective posts in the Clinton Administration, nor Thurgood Marshall his post as a federal judge.
After all, if this process is illegitiamate, it must always be so, right?
Well, I don’t like Bolton at all, myself. If somehow Bush had misdialed his phone and gotten me and asked my opinion, I would have told him Bolton was an awful choice and to ditch him immediately.
That having been said, I don’t see anything wrong with this. Despite what the OP implied, Bush is hardly the first president to have done this. IIRC, this practice goes back to the earliest days of the republic with John Adams appointing people to posts in the face of an openly hostile Congress. This case is mild in comparison, because Congress would certainly confirm Bolton in a straight vote.
And let’s face it people, who better than Bolton could represent this administrations interests and attitudes to the UN? Bush has taken a go-it-alone screw-the-world attitude towards foreign policy, and I’m sure Bolton is up to the task of telling this to the UN.
