Being vocal in the media about supporting the need for nominees to have an up or down vote, even maybe publicly backing up the integrity of his judicial nominees and cabinet nominees, hardly seems to be a breach of constitutional responsibilities. After all, he campaigned VIGOROUSLY about the need for judicial nominees to be appointed and passed who upheld the constitution. If he could say it then, why not now? I'm not saying he doesn't have his reasons, clearly he does have. But I don't understand that particular argument.
Well, you're right that this round is not over yet, not by any means. I was using a metaphor, maybe not a particularly apt one. I agree with you that even this particular fight is far from over.
I also agree that Bolton's nomination seems to have more symbolic significance than real. The UN will probably be what it is regardless of whether Bolton is there or not. The only argument I can think of against that conclusion is the ferocity with which the left is fighting it. Why go to the mat on that one if Bolton won't really have an impact? I'm trying to understand that one, it's strange to me. I'm not into conspiracies, but I'm wondering if the fear is that he might find out something more damaging than is already known.
That is what the administration has done. Every time the media asks the WH about the things that are going on in the Senate & they are regularly asked, the answer has consistently been "the President asks that his nominees be given an up or down vote." The President's answers have always been along the same lines. They haven't stopped saying it, but the MSM doesn't see the answers as news, so it's not getting reported. Read through the transcript's of a few daily WH briefings.
Blocking Bolton is pure politics, though the left would like to see someone quiet & unassuming in the position.