Bush caves to Democrats....again

TownHall.com ^ | 21 MAY 04 | Neal Boortz

[dts32041]

If it were not for his fondness for tax cuts, and his pursuit, however flawed, of the ongoing war on terror, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to vote for George Bush this November.  OK .. The Poodle's name on the ballot would be a fairly good reason .. though I'm not sure reason enough.

You've probably heard by now, but George Bush has once again managed the nearly impossible physical feat of handing his head to the Democrats ... again. He gave up; ran for the hills; threw in the towel; bailed. Tragically, didn't really get anything of real value for his craven surrender. He gave the Democrats almost a complete victory.

The issue this time is the nomination and confirmation process for federal judges.  Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants to the president the authority to appoint federal judges “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”  Every legal scholar not employed by Harvard of the Senate Judiciary Committee will tell you that a majority vote in the Senate would constitute consent. The president makes his choice; the nomination goes to the Senate, and the Senate votes. If a majority votes for confirmation, we have a new federal judge.

That was then, this is now. When the Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 2002 elections they decided that a simple majority vote would no longer be good enough to confirm a judicial appointee.  Over the years leftists have depended on judicial activism and fiat to enact much of their agenda. The future of their anti-individualist, big-government designs depend largely on the left's ability to keep Constitutionally oriented judges off the federal bench.  Since they didn't have a Senate majority, they needed a new rule. To keep constitutionalists off the bench Daschle and Company decided to change the Constitution to require a super-majority for a judicial confirmation. Sixty votes. No less.

Does Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provide for a super majority in any Senate proceedings Yes, but just one; the ratification of treaties. So there goes your argument that there is nothing wrong with requiring 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination.

For two years now Daschle and Company have been preventing votes on the floor of the Senate for confirmation of many of Bush's judicial nominees. Never before in our history has a minority party prevented confirmation votes on judicial nominees that had the necessary majority vote waiting for them. 

Never.  The Democrats were showing a crass level of complete disrespect for the Constitution of the United States and for years of Senate tradition.  We shouldn't be surprised, though.  When it comes to reacquiring their Senate power, it is clear that neither the Constitution nor the successful conclusion to our war against terrorism and the restructuring of Iraq can be allowed to stand in the way.

As it turns out, the Constitution gives the president a bit of an out when the Senate is acting up like this.  Move on to Clause 3.  The president can make recess appointments.  This Bush did with two judicial nominees that the Democrats had filibustered, Pryor and Pickering.  You must know that this didn't sit too well with Daschle and Company. How dare the President of the United States use a constitutional procedure to prevent them from blocking a confirmation vote?  Their response?  They proceeded to bring virtually all presidential nominations, even the ones they liked, to a complete standstill.

Let's review here.  I'm not trying to waste space, but there may be Democrats reading this column. In government schools, we must be careful not to leave them behind when we get into even the most moderately complicated situations. We will call this "back up and repeat essential points" as the  "No Liberal Left Behind style of writing.

A. The Democrats modify the Constitution by requiring a super-majority vote for the confirmation of certain judicial nominees.

B. The president responds by using the perfect constitutionally legitimate exercise of making a recess appointment.

C. The Democrats, outraged at the president's legal use of his Constitutional authority, bring nearly all Senate business to a halt in retaliation.

D. The president promises to stop any further recess appointments during this term if the Senators will only do the job they were elected to do.

This is leadership When George W. Bush was sworn in he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Just how are you preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution when you promise to stop using a constitutionally legitimate procedure to prevent political opponents from defying the Constitution.. and for this we get a quick confirmation of about 27 judicial nominees whom the Democrats didn&'t object to in the first place Wow!; What a deal!

Senate Democrats must be getting a real chuckle out of this in their private gatherings.  Time after time they have rolled George Bush.  Protectionist trade rules for the steel industry, obscene spending increases for hopeless government schools, even the left's current political showpiece of the 9/11 Commission hearings.

[oreolady]

Can someone come up with a rational explanation why GW would cave like this?

[dts32041]

Rush came up with an explanation, don't know if it is rational.

Rush believes that GWB thinks the dignity of the presidency is so important , he has to make it appear above the fray.

Therefore he doesn't want to get in a peeing contest with congress, unless it is really really important, like vetoing the highway appropriations bill.

[spokeshave]

It forces the Senate to continue working so that John F'n Kerry misses more important votes.

Problem is if he is absent the vote the flip flops are not so apparent

[CWOJackson]

Hmmmmmm? 27 judges to fill vacanies in overloaded courts?

If the damned Republicans in Congress would do their jobs this wouldn't be necessary.

[Starve The Beast]

If it were not for his fondness for tax cuts, and his pursuit, however flawed, of the ongoing war on terror, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to vote for George Bush...

Well, but he is fond of tax cuts, and he is pursuing the WOT with a vigor and courage that few men could match. Boortz is certainly giving voice to an angst that I've felt for a long time, but Dubya still has my vote.

[A CA Guy]

"if the Senators will only do the job they were elected to do."

That is a big IF!

IF they don't, then he appoints maybe?

[risk]

Both your tagline and comments are encouraging, thanks.

[Consort]

The Senate was designed to allow obstruction, especially if neither party has a filibuster-proof majority. Bush didn't eliminate the power of recess appoitments, he merely decided to not use them for the rest of this term (a few months) in order to get his judicial appointments approved. If he's reelected, he can again recess appoint, if necessary. If he's reelected with a filibuster-proof Senate, then it's a whole new ballgame. If his nominees are approved, they will be appointed, regardless of who wins the election. If they are filibustered and Kerry gets elected, then Kerry's will name the nominees....and they won't be conservatives.

[Texasforever]

Yep. Bush is fighting a war in Iraq, in the press, with the democrats and now a few wobbly republican congressmen in the middle of a crucial election and this guy sneers "he caved". Damn I hate sideline snipers that are supposed to be on our side.

[thegreatbeast]

I'm with you; Bush better have some kickass tricks up his sleeve if he's gonna make a purse outta this ear.

[Indie]

Only a tin foil explanation here. Both parties are involved in the NWO type stuff...it is all I can come up with.

Unbelievable.

As Rush said the other day: "I am beginning to wonder who wants it most, us or them. I really think it is them!"

[dufekin]

There's a simple explanation for this maneuver. The President can make recess appointments only when Congress is not in session. The Congress will remain in session more or less continuously for quite some time. Bush's political advisers seem to be telling him to keep a low profile and avoid confrontation. (I personally disagree on both points. Bush should ignore the election entirely and do his job, especially if that means invading Syria--and soon.)

Because the agreement is not binding, Bush can resume making recess appointments in the event that Congress should go home. Or he can make them after the election. Irrelevant, he has not given up anything of consequence. There probably are no "controversial" judicial nominees willing to accept a recess appointment right now and there very well may not be any until the election.

It's not exactly a surrender.

[CWOJackson]

Notice how they conveniently forget the Senate's utter failure in this whole issue? Instead they go straight to it's Bush's fault.

[Outraged]

Proverbs 25:26 -- "If the Godly compromise with the wicked, it is like polluting a fountain or muddying a spring."

[Texasforever]

There is no animal on earth that a "paleocon" hates more than one with the name of Bush.

[votelife]

President Bush has just agreed to a deal where 25 so-called "non-controversial" judges will get up/down votes while Bush has agreed to not recess appoint judges until his second term. This deal has outraged/confused/frustrated many Freepers but I think everyone is missing the big picture.

First what did Bush give up? He agreed not to recess. Until term #2. But recess appts only serve until the next Congress. So Bush is giving up what, 7 months of a judge term? Recall that Bush offered recess noms to more than Pickering from MS and Pryor from AL. Others refused. Estrada, a very popular cause on this site, refused a recess appt. So all in all, Bush really did not give up much, because in reality most judges don't want it.

What does Bush get? 25 right of center judges. Most are district court, but apparently five are for the Appeals court.

The point is, the fundamental equation has not changed. The real battle is over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sets precedent for the lower courts to follow. While these lower posts are important, it's even more important to get conservatives on the High Court.

So to get more conservatives confirmed it's simple: 1. Help the GOP get a bigger Senate Majority 2. Call talk radio about Democrat judicial obstruction 3. Write your newspaper about Democrat judicial obstruction 4. Tell the GOP/Senate/Bush to fight for conservative judges 5. Make sure you get all of your conservative family and friends to vote in November

This agreement between Bush and Dashcle is meaningless. If this wasn't done, zero judges would have been confirmed this year. Qualified judges like Priscilla Owen (TX Supreme Court), Janice Brown (CA Supreme Court), among many others will be a campaign issue. Bush used this issue in 2002 to stunning effect, pulling off big wins in Minnesota (Coleman), GA (Chambliss), and MI (Talent). It also helped in Texas (Cornyn). But this agreement does not change the fundamental fact that the Dems are going all out to stop conservative appointees, particularly conservative minorities from serving in high judicial positions. Right now, Bush is preoccupied with Iraq. But he is with us on the judges. He needs us to do the heavy lifting for now becuase he's trying to save the world from radical Islamic extremism. But come the campaign season, FR will see that Bush will fight for his judges, will Kerry will try to support and oppose Bush's judges.

Let's resolve to help make the judicial obstruction an even bigger issue than it already is by calling talk radio, writing letters, working on campaigns, calling Congress and the President etc.

Read my screenline, that's what we need to do!

[GopherIt]

Also, if I have it right, this term ends when Congress adjourns for the election. If Bush loses, he can make recess appointments in the interregnum.
However, this arrangement smacks of defeatism, or is it covering the bases just in case?

[GATOR NAVY]

Over the years leftists have depended on judicial activism and fiat to enact much of their agenda. The future of their anti-individualist, big-government designs depend largely on the left's ability to keep Constitutionally oriented judges off the federal bench.

This right here is what makes this issue "really really important" and worth fighting for.

[A Jovial Cad]

I like Boortz, but he's simply wrong here. His argument is with the time Thomas Jefferson spent as the VP (1797-1801). While "presiding" over the Senate, and not doing much else, he wrote a booklet that basically became the Rules & Procedures of the United Senate. The Senate has reaffirmed them, with slight modifications and minor revisions, ever since. They do so under the Constitution's express declaration that each legislative body of Congress will be the final arbiter of their own rules on how procedural business will be conducted in their respective chambers. One of those rules, for the Senate, is the unlimited debate procedure, or "Filibuster." It requires a 60-vote majority to end debate in the Senate on any given issue even *ONE* Senator might wish to drag on until the legislative session ends. It's a "rule" with such long-standing and precedent that it's never likely to go away.
I despise the DemonRat's dishonest use of it today, in 2004 to block valid judicial nominations, as much as anyone. But let's face it: *our* side has used the filibuster to stop a lot of silly liberal legislation that would've sailed right through when the Dims controlled the Senate in the past. So I'm of two minds about the utility of getting rid of the "unlimited debate" procedure in the United States Senate.
Regardless of all that, President Bush has nothing to do with that, one way or the other. He should not be blamed for bending to a 200+ year-old realities of how business is transacted on the floor of the "Upper" Chamber of Congress. Boortz should back off. The *Dims* in the Senate are the problem--not the White House.