It’s talking about the appointment, not the recess. The appointment is only good until the next session of congress starts - Jan 2007. IOW Bolton gets the job, but it’s temporary.
Sure, presidents have done it before, and they’ll do it again. It’s in the Constitution. Consider this: Clinton made 140 recess appointments over the whole of two terms; Bush is well on pace to sidestep Congress far more than him. And just because it’s been done in the past doesn’t make it right to repeat. Furthermore, these recess appointments to high judicial seats are not exactly in the spirit of bipartisanship that Bush pretends to favor. Moreover, considering the shambles our international reputation is in these days, maybe we should try to appoint someone less polarizing to this global body? A well-done UN appointment would serve the United States well in the eyes of many of the poorer nations, to whom the UN is their best means of leverage. Remember that terrorism often finds a home in a lot of those poorer nations.
“Grave Constitutional crisis”? Can the hyperbole. I never said anything of the sort. Please see the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
You’re not one of the ball washers. I shouldn’t have included you.
Which means that large chunk of your OP, that part about presidents listening to Congress - was just bullshit pulled out for the occasion?
You have me a bit confused here. Perhaps you can quantify a bit better how previous presidents have “listened” to Congress. I ponied up some cases and figures showing that your OP was, to my mind, just a bunch of hot air.
Do you have anything else?
Sure. We have rules.
One of those rules is the filibuster.
Another is the President’s ability to make recess appointments.
Which is fine, provided that one does not labor under the delusion that a recess appointment can somehow constitute “listening to congress”.
Recess appointments are the perogative of the President. While I view it as an endaround tactic, I don’t begrudge this President what past Presidents have used.
Problem is this particular appointment. Bolton’s an abrasive, tactless hater of the UN. Why in God’s name would you appoint him ambassador to the UN unless you hate the UN? Why do they hate the UN? Is it because of their desire for unilateral military action?
I think there should be more public discussion of exactly what the UN does, what Bolton thinks of it, and what he proposes to do as ambassador. Do most people share this administration’s hatred of the UN? Is this really the people’s will, or is this another case like stem cell research, where the administration acts against the wishes of a substantial majority of people?
Well I agree with your first case, but not the last two; while I am generally against recess appointments, I think they *can * be valid (like when a nominee isn’t put up for a vote because he’s gay, or black). Bolton’s opposition is offering reasoned arguments, not hate speech.
That’s fair. Better to drop the pretense about listening to congress, IMHO, and support or criticize the nomination on its own merits.
No shit. I haven’t challenged either of those rules, or attacked the president at all for his appointment. How is anything you just said relevant to the issue of listening to congress, which is what I was commenting on?
There’s nothing illegal or even shady about the appointment itself - though it, and a dozen other little actions like it, really serve to emphasize the grand fiction of Bush’s campaign slogan ‘I’m a uniter, not a divider.’
That’s what chafes my shorts about all this.
I am not at all surprised.
Certainly both parties have used this type of appointment, it’s not unusual in the slightest. Nor do I think it’s worth wading one’s panties over. This administration has done many things quite a bit more pitworthy, IMHO.
Bush selected the man he wanted for the job he wanted done, and I think it’s an excellent choice. Note, please for the record, that I’m not saying that Bolton is an excellent choice (or even a good one) for the position.
I am concerned about how our allies will perceive this appointment (and his future actions as well), but then again, I’ve not been particularly supportive of the tone or actions of this administrations foreign policy yet.
But ragging on Bush for pushing through this appointment - eh. I’ll be a lot more concerned about SC appointments, thank you.
Oh, and I don’t recall much being said about “uniter not a diveder” since the Gore/Bush election. Certainly haven’t seen any evidentiary actions indicating such since then, but even the rhetoric changed to something like “looking forward to spending political capital” vs. that whole uniter/diverder crap.
Um… well, there was the Byrd/Reagan agreement of 1985, which brought standards to this process. As my link shows, President Clinton violated this agreement in 1999, but it’s an exception that proves the rule. Sure, the system hasn’t been perfect, but there’s been a lot more dialogue in the past. Bush’s imperiousness is inexcusable.
Actually, I was asking an honest question. Bolton had dropped off of my radar for a while and I wanted to be sure before I made an ass out of myself. 
What really chafes me isn’t that President Bush did this at all, but that he did it for someone that there were legitimate concerns about. At best he’s a big time asshole. At worst he’s a raving nutter.
And this could bite Bush in the ass. Now all the Dems have to do is publically rail against President Bush for bypassing congress and spread everything from legitimate concerns to crazy ass speculation about Bolton. Bear in mind that I say this not as a partisan, but as an observer of the political process.
Norm Coleman is doing that already.
Regards,
Shodan
And that’s fine with me. I didn’t say what I said as a partisan, I said it as a matter of objective fact.
The UN is the world government, by definition (even only on an ad hoc basis). At the moment, it is a largely powerless talking shop dominated by a few powerful states, in which some representatives are returned by undemocratic means. To draw a parallel with the united state government in Washington DC, it is as though most of the southern states send representatives who have not been elected, the majority (General Assembly) votes on any issue can be safely ignored without sanction, and only California, New York, Texas and a couple of others (the Security Council) get to vote on anything binding.
Investing Bolton as the US representative is just like California sending a staunch seccessionist to Washington to wreck any moves towards making the government more democratic and accountable, allowing all states to simply carry on as they please.
It’s not at all unfair to characterize acting in accord with the apparent will of a majority of Congress as “listening to Congress.” It’s true that there is a parliamentary rule that can be used to derail a vote by extending debate indefinitely, and it’s true that stopping this move requires a 3/5ths super-majority. But what of it? If a simple majority favors the appointment, how can you fairly deny that the President is “listening to Congress?”
Did President Bush use that slogan at all during the 2004 election?