That's not a fair argument, because the Republicans weren't concerned with recess appointments. If they had been, and said so, I would have expected them to stay on the job too. You can't express outrage over a practice or tactic and then, when given a chance to do something about it, do nothing.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Reid to keep Congress in session so Bush can't make recess appointments.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That's not a fair argument, because the Republicans weren't concerned with recess appointments. If they had been, and said so, I would have expected them to stay on the job too. You can't express outrage over a practice or tactic and then, when given a chance to do something about it, do nothing.
Except for the fact that the Republicans were *very* concerned about recess appointments under Clinton; they ranted against his 'abusing' the process if he made a very small number of appointments, such as to appoint a black judge blocked by a southern Senator over and over.
The Republicans went so far as to abuse their power by demanding Clinton submit lists of planned recess appointments to them in advance, something the constitution gives them no power to demand, by threatening all his appointments if he didn't - in effect blackmailing him with the threat not to approve any nominee.
But what they didn't do was what Pabster says he'd 'have expected them' to do, what he implies he'd have posted about - they didn't stay in session over it.
I don't have any problem with that; they didn't face the sort of recess appointment abuse that democrats today face.
But it's just Pabster getting it wrong again saying they 'weren't concerned with recess appointments'.
So let me get this straight:
Reid is going to keep the Senate in session, and instead of actually accomplishing something while being in session, F'ing waste time with nonimportant blathering?
I think we need to have each and every House and Senate member write the word and definition of "efficiency" 1000 times on their first appt., and then 100 times each week as an ongoing reminder that no of us with real jobs that have real dliverables could possibly be allowed to be as inefficient as Congress.
Reid and Pelosi are jokes...the same things they criticize "Bush&Co" for they do themselves...
Keeping the Senate in session all the while not actually getting any work done - how absolutely F'ing stupid is that?
Chuck
P.S. I don't care if he's keeping the Senate in session to make sure Bush doesn't sneak an appointment in, that's certainly his prerogative. I do have a problem with them not sitting down and getting work done. If this isn't an example of a Do Nothing Congress then I don't know what is...
Reid is going to keep the Senate in session, and instead of actually accomplishing something while being in session, F'ing waste time with nonimportant blathering?
I think we need to have each and every House and Senate member write the word and definition of "efficiency" 1000 times on their first appt., and then 100 times each week as an ongoing reminder that no of us with real jobs that have real dliverables could possibly be allowed to be as inefficient as Congress.
Reid and Pelosi are jokes...the same things they criticize "Bush&Co" for they do themselves...
Keeping the Senate in session all the while not actually getting any work done - how absolutely F'ing stupid is that?
Chuck
P.S. I don't care if he's keeping the Senate in session to make sure Bush doesn't sneak an appointment in, that's certainly his prerogative. I do have a problem with them not sitting down and getting work done. If this isn't an example of a Do Nothing Congress then I don't know what is...
Fern
Elite Member
Techs,
Firstly, you made the above claim it's incumbant upon you to provide some proof/linkage.
Secondly, to others, what's all this talk of trying slip some incompetent by in the process?
Did you people read the links?
Here's the story:
Reid voices no opposition to any individual, and certainly nothing about anyone's competence. Instead, he's pissed that the Dem nominees aren't getting approved.
How do the Dems get to nominate when its hould be the Exec branch that has that role?
So now, Reid demands not only to approve but nominate? Is he usurping power?
BTW: John Bolton is not incompetent. Never been legitimately accussed of incompetence by anybody. He's accussed of being abrasive, tough and/or "mean". Not incompetent.
Fern
shira
Diamond Member
By "when given the chance to do something about it," you mean what? Find a compromise with the Republicans?
This is BS. There were many nominees that were on hold when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Yet the Senate went on recess and Bush appointed recess nominees. The Republicans didn't mind, since this was a back-door way of getting nominees the Republicans wanted confirmed to be "acting" judges or department heads (or whatever) in the same role nominated - nominees that couldn't get 60 votes in the Sentate (to shut off debate). So the Republicans had every reason to go to recess - to get around Senate rules (and the Democrats).
If the Republicans had been principled, they would have kept the Senate in session to hammer out compromises with the Democrats on nominees (just as you're advocating that the Democrats do now with he Republicans). That IS what you seem to be advocating, right?
But naturally you had no problem when the Republicans went on recess. Someone so clearly lacking in principle as you do would hardly wish to enforce principle when his own party has the power.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Both sides are playing games with the nominees and being unprincipled in the process. Let's stop pretending this is any one side's fault.
Lemon law
Lifer
As Fern makes a very weird point of dubious value---BTW: John Bolton is not incompetent. Never been legitimately accussed of incompetence by anybody. He's accussed of being abrasive, tough and/or "mean". Not incompetent.
We are talking about a diplomatic post here. I would submit John Bolton is incompetent to fill that role. A diplomat has to persuade and Bolton by his very temperament and past history is anything but a diplomat. And then went on to prove his own incompetence after being appointed.
But in the larger picture we have another somewhat dubious argument being made by Fern--with---How do the Dems get to nominate when its hould be the Exec branch that has that role?
The question is should it in the case of someone like FCC chairman, UN Ambassador, the Justice Department, or any of the countless similar appointments to departments never envisioned by the by the founding fathers and therefore not mentioned in the constitution. All these new agencies were created and by congress and were intended to do the people's business. Under the assumption that the executive would appoint people to do just that, do the peoples business, congress had in past, tucked the power to appoint their head people in with the executive wing. But what congress givith, it can take away. And if this partisan infighting struggle between branches becomes the norm, congress well might have to reassert the right to appoint the heads of these new agencies as a check on Presidential power. Leaving just the agencies mentioned in the constitution as the under the purview of only the executive in appointment power.
When the very head of these tax payer funded agencies deny congress their oversight role by asserting executive privilege as an answer to a legal subpoena, we all know a breech of trust has occurred. Right now congress only has the GAO which is badly over matched by all the information gathering agencies now tucked into the executive wing.
What has in past been a spirit of mainly co-operation and trust between the legislative and executive branches has been badly breeched by GWB&co. And congress may well have to revisit the issue of who appoints the heads of these extra constitutional agencies to restore the balance of power.
We are talking about a diplomatic post here. I would submit John Bolton is incompetent to fill that role. A diplomat has to persuade and Bolton by his very temperament and past history is anything but a diplomat. And then went on to prove his own incompetence after being appointed.
But in the larger picture we have another somewhat dubious argument being made by Fern--with---How do the Dems get to nominate when its hould be the Exec branch that has that role?
The question is should it in the case of someone like FCC chairman, UN Ambassador, the Justice Department, or any of the countless similar appointments to departments never envisioned by the by the founding fathers and therefore not mentioned in the constitution. All these new agencies were created and by congress and were intended to do the people's business. Under the assumption that the executive would appoint people to do just that, do the peoples business, congress had in past, tucked the power to appoint their head people in with the executive wing. But what congress givith, it can take away. And if this partisan infighting struggle between branches becomes the norm, congress well might have to reassert the right to appoint the heads of these new agencies as a check on Presidential power. Leaving just the agencies mentioned in the constitution as the under the purview of only the executive in appointment power.
When the very head of these tax payer funded agencies deny congress their oversight role by asserting executive privilege as an answer to a legal subpoena, we all know a breech of trust has occurred. Right now congress only has the GAO which is badly over matched by all the information gathering agencies now tucked into the executive wing.
What has in past been a spirit of mainly co-operation and trust between the legislative and executive branches has been badly breeched by GWB&co. And congress may well have to revisit the issue of who appoints the heads of these extra constitutional agencies to restore the balance of power.
So, your 'principle' that you would expect the republicans to address concerns with recess appointments, if they had them, by staying in session for some reason has a magical time frame with it while George Bush is president - before that, when Clinton was president, your 'principle' changes for some unstated yet very appropriate reason. It's not just that the discussion here happened to refer to Bush's tenure, and you responded with a general position that should be applicable to any time, not just 2001 to now.
Bzzzzzt.
Doesn't hold water. You answered with something that's a general principle that should be applicable to any time - and when confronted with hypocrisy, you offer nothing but the irrelevancy that the triggering comment for your response happened to refer to Bush's time in office. If you could show any reason why that limit justifies you changing your position, fine, but you haven't.
Lemon law
Lifer
Pabster, your comment would describe normal legislative executive branch relations for almost 98% of American history.
It totally fails with GWB&co. GWB is all take and no give. And if nothing else, the congress is going to force some GWB compromising after trying and failing to work with a President that is totally unreasonable.
If you felt froggy Pabster you might try to make the argument that the President is right and congress is wrong, but given the full plate of failure GWB&co has brought to this nation with his incredibly stupid policies, that is a comparative argument almost impossible to justify.
Yeah, congress can't appoint people.
I do hope that congress continues this practice of remaining in session constantly however, because the constitution is very clear that the president is supposed to get the OK from the senate on all his appointments, and Bush has clearly been abusing the leeway given to him. Congress can just as effectively reassert the powers that the last Congress let erode by forcing Bush to deal with them... the way it should be.
While this Congress hasn't done a lot of things that I wish they had, at least they are doing something to reign in the executive which was previously completely out of control.
I do hope that congress continues this practice of remaining in session constantly however, because the constitution is very clear that the president is supposed to get the OK from the senate on all his appointments, and Bush has clearly been abusing the leeway given to him. Congress can just as effectively reassert the powers that the last Congress let erode by forcing Bush to deal with them... the way it should be.
While this Congress hasn't done a lot of things that I wish they had, at least they are doing something to reign in the executive which was previously completely out of control.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Well that's odd because all you've done is criticize the Republicans.
Pssst, BDS Sufferer, I'm not a Rightie, or a Leftie, sorry to not be able to fuel your BDS further... :roll:
I simply demand from our government officials - especially those at the top which is the Congress and Executive - F'ing efficiency and results. It's not too much to ask for, every Corp. and successful business demands it of us worker bees of the American economy, so I don't think it's too much for me to expect our country's "Leadership" to be at the top when it comes to efficiency and (quality) output of work product.
And this in no way is efficient, or quality work.
Chuck
Your position doesn't make a ton of sense. Congress is normally in recess during this time. It's like complaining that a salaried employee went into work on his day off and then didn't get any work done. Sure it might be strange, but it isn't costing you anything so why do you care?
Phokus
Lifer
I can't believe people are actually against having some sort of vetting process. Bush has, without a doubt, tried to put unqualified hacks into every position imaginable. Do you remember Harriet Meirs? Even you Bushbots were upset at Bush for wanting her to be a Supreme Court Justice. Do we really need "Brownies" in every aspect of government?
shira
Diamond Member
Nonsense, fool. I've consistently pointed out that both sides play the same games:
My first post in this thread:
My second post in this thread (directed at Pabster):
And my third post pointed out that Pabster was criticizing the Democrats for for failing to negotiate with the Republicans, when he did NOT criticize the Republicans (when they controlled the senate) for failing to negotiate with the Democrats.
That is, in all three posts I didn't direct ANY criticism toward the behavior of Republicans. My only criticisms have been of Pabster's hypocrisy.
Now, maybe you'll learn to read and COMPREHEND next time before you make false statements.
I'm not sure what job you have, but in IT in the company we work for, we all spend plenty of our personal time in fact either at work, or, Working From Home (i.e. VPN'ing). For absolute certain, if I'm actually going into work, I'm not going to sit there and surf the Internet - I'm going to get work done.
The fact that this Congress has accomplished so very little, tells me that they shouldn't be taking any time off - which is the same gauntlet they threw down to the Iraqi's.
We have huge issues on our plate as a country, why the Congress is taking any time off is beyond me. These F'ers should all be locked in until they deliver on actual legislation that they know won't automatically be veto'd, so as we can at least start some type of progress on all these issues.
It's completely and utterly inexcusable the results Congress has been delivering for decades now (this is just perhaps the worst one in recent memory), and if we don't start calling these F'ers on it, absolutely nothing is going to change.
Chuck
psssssst, BDS sufferer (pro-Bush derangement Syndrome), you are a righty as I use the term. You can identify yourself however you like for your own points.
You're being myopic. You don't think there's any 'inefficiency' in business? Are you that ignorant and naive? Government isn't only about so-called 'efficiency', it's about trying to do what's good for the public in an environment where there are many forces not out for the public interest, it's about trying to balance the needs of different groups, it's about the balancing of power between the branches as well.
The president - and president - can have an interest in appointing 'inefficient', 'incompetent' cronies to positions, because it's good for him. not the public. By your admission, you don't like that. The founding fathers, to reduce the chances of that happening, instead of just saying 'the president appoints people', created a somewhat independant role for the Senate in the process - they get to approve his appointees, to keep those types out, and to 'advise' him. You should like that.
So, when Bush tries to find a way to circumvent the quality control from the founding fathers by getting incompetent cronies in without the Senate having any say, by your own admission you shouldn't like that; and then the only way for the Senate to block his circumventing the quality control is for them to create an artifical session, you should care more about the good it's doing in protecting the efficiency that the quality control helps with than the fact that the process required a phony session be added.
But you don't - because your self-description as not a righty leaves much to be desired in accuracy, IMO. You don't follow your own stated position.
OMFG, genius, please go back and read my first post again, and then don't forget to read this part (I even bolded the part that makes your whole post worthless):
"P.S. I don't care if he's keeping the Senate in session to make sure Bush doesn't sneak an appointment in, that's certainly his prerogative. I do have a problem with them not sitting down and getting work done. If this isn't an example of a Do Nothing Congress then I don't know what is..."
My whole beef with this move isn't that Reid is keeping the Senate in session as a check on Bush, my problem is that they're going to be blabbing and accomplishing actually nothing.
Do not sit here and tell me that because someplaces somewhere have inefficieny, that it's OK that our Congress does too. That's the most rediculous logic I've ever heard.
This same Congress went apesh1t over the Iraqi's taking two months off, after having accomplished little. This Congress itself has accomplished little more, and has hundreds of years more practice than the Iraqi's can ever hope to have at this point.
In reality, Reid shouldn't even have had to make this statement, because Congress should be in lockdown until they actually deliver meaningful legislation to Bush (meaning: It's a good bill, not one where political points can be gained when you already know the POTUS is going to veto it).
"You don't think there's any 'inefficiency' in business"...Gezus Christ, we've got a brain surgeon here folks!!!
Chuck
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
