Posted on 06/21/2005 2:19:31 AM PDT by W04Man
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 20, 2005
Contact: John Reid
Director of Communications
(202) 224-4746
ALLEN DISAPPOINTED WITH DEMOCRATS CONTINUED FILIBUSTER OF JOHN BOLTON
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today made the following statement on the filibustered nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:
"Republicans and, indeed, America need to wake up to the fact that Senate Democrats have no intention of moving forward with votes on President Bush's key nominees. If they don't like John Bolton, that is their right, but they ought to have the guts to stand up and vote against him rather than endlessly obstructing thus keeping his nomination stuck on the Senate floor. Some Democrats just pretend to have unanswered questions and feign concern about individuals when their real goal is to try and embarrass President Bush and tarnish the reputations of his nominees.
"I am very disappointed by today's vote because I believe John Bolton is the perfect person to protect the principles, interests and desires of the American people at the United Nations. Each year, U.S. taxpayers provide more than $2 billion in funding to the U.N. As the largest contributor to the U.N., Americans expect the organization to be held accountable for its actions or lack thereof. I believe John Bolton has the record of performance, skills, wisdom and principles necessary to unflinchingly lead vital reform at the U.N. He will be a watchdog, not a lapdog, which is exactly what the U.N. needs today.
"The continued filibuster of John Bolton's nomination by the Democrats is delaying a golden opportunity for reform at the U.N. It's worth reminding those who are obstructing a simple 'up or down' vote on Mr. Bolton that President Bush won reelection last November and should now have the opportunity to choose his own team. Most of those who oppose John Bolton's nomination today, also opposed him well before this fishing expedition began. This is simply a game of partisan politics being played by senators who want to undermine the President's agenda for reform."
Senator Allen could have very well included with these remarks that an up or down vote could be relized if the 'Constitutional option' were used. And also, Bush does have the opportunity to choose his own team here, albeit temporarily, if he recess appoints Bolton.
fyi
"Blah, blah, blah, blah don't like John Bolton blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah embarrass President Bush blah, blah, blah.........
I think the "Constitutional Option" is only being considered for Judicial Nominees, isn't it?
The subject has been broached in judiciary hearings, yes, but why would that preclude it being used in the Bolton nomination?
All for naught, as Frist will never invoke it anyway.
Maybe Allen realizes there is nothing unconstitutional about filibustering nominees. It's annoying, but it isn't unconstitutional. He deserves credit for grasping that simple fact, which has alluded so many conservatives. What's left is just complaining and talk, but hey, that's what Senators do for a living.
I like and appreciate Senator Allen, I just think he could've put a little more bite in his remarks.
Thanks for the post. Hooray for Senator Allen!
Note to John McCain: You're still an a&&hole.
I hear ya. I just think it makes a person look weak if he's got more bark than bite. Allen knows what he can do as 1 of 100 and he's doing it. I don't like when ppl try to say filibusters of nominees are unconstitutional, because they aren't unconstitutional. So I am glad Allen isn't embarassing himself (beyond the unavoidable embarassment that must come from being a US Senator.)
There damn well is something unconstitutional about a minority of Senators blocking Senate business which brings us to the still unused Constitutional Option to restore Senate rules to what they once were, simple majority. If these clowns want to filibuster make them stand on the Senate floor until they piss on themselves rather than pissing on us.
No there isn't. Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
The advice and consent clause requires the president to get the consent of the Senate, but it does not require the Senate to consent, nor does it put any time limit or vote specifications on it. It's left totally up to the Senate.
We need at least 6 Dems to get a vote for any nomination. This is the real issue. Is this possible? If so, which senators? And, why would they continuously expose themselves to withering fire from the left to do this?
One has to remember, these folks were perfectly happy blocking Condi Rice. If this becomes the Gold Standard for behavior, then no administration is going to be able to function. Perhaps, the Constitutional option is the only way out.
Certainly, the RATs would have no hesitation to use it if the situation was reversed. And probably will, when next time it occurs that they are in a similar position. Presumably, the Reps will then be caught flat footed with their mouths hanging open, huffing and puffing with indignity, because they believed the Dems when they said how important the filibuster was to our system. We keep believing these people, just like Charlie Brown keeps believing Lucy will actually hold that football. It just gets pathetic.
Last point on this: If you look at Article 2, Sec 2, where it gets into presidential nominations, the first clause in the section, dealing with making treaties, sets a constitutional requirement of 2/3 majority. Then in the next clause, regarding nominations, it is silent. Clearly, this leaves it up to the Senate.
That's a bullet point on the Senatorial job description.
Huck, you really don't know what your talking about. I'm to tired to argue this 1 again but if you want to pretend your a constitutional lawyer then look up "legislative entrenchment".
LOL! According to the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or literally "inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others," the enumeration of one thing in the Constitution implies the exclusion of another.
That's a bullet point on the Senatorial job description.
True. So, true. But, its the "getting caught flat footed" bit despite having been here before, that gets discouraging. Now that the Constitutional Option is on the table, it will be used. If not now, just when we hate to see it the most. And, the Reps as normal will be "surprised and dumbfounded" yet again. Despite this being the gazzillionth time that this same trick has been played.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.