 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
Posted on 08/01/2005 11:02:02 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
absolutely...
When Slick appointed openly homosexual James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg, a Catholic country, where was the outrage?
Tempest in a teapot.
Bolton is the best man for the job.The sooner he gets into that hornet's nest of decay and corruption and starts speaking up for America and Israel the better.
I love it when they hide How-weird's meds!
The "abuse of power" takes place when, in the absence of any constitutional mandate applicable to the rights of any single individual Senator, and in the absence of any formal Senate rule, adopted and agreed on by majority vote of all Senators, a single Senator without any Senate or Senate committee vote is able to dictate a "hold" on a presidential nomination, as if that single Senator was excercizing the constitutional power of the whole Senate.
It is an obstruction of the democratic process and it makes a mockery of majority rights in that body. Senators get away with it because every Senator wants that "tradition" reserved for their own dictatorial use, should they feel so inclined.
The Senate minority has totally abused ITS "power" by distorting the spirit of the filibuster rule. The Rule as used historically did have some useful purposes; for one thing, it did permit a Senator to slow down the process and force a legitimate debate. As a brake on runaway legislation, that makes sense. However, the 'Rats now are abusing the privilege to PREVENT VOTES -- even on cabinet-level appointees, which is even less defensible than for lifetime judicial appointments.
Problem for us is that the "moderate" GOP Senators are not going to throw away the filibuster and lose THEIR influence unless it is absolutely necessary. Bolton isn't a big enough issue for them to do that.
The problem for the 'RATS is that one day they won't get a vote on a cabinet nomination -- assuming they get back in the Oval Office before the Sun burns out.
Today, in an unprecedented move,
NOT REALLY.........BUBBA DID IT TOO. in between getting BJs in the White House, probably why the libs didn't notice.
No, both are found in the Constitution in Article II, section 2. Clause 2 gives the Senate the power to advise and consent to nominations, while Clause 3 says:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
This enables the President to make an appointment during a Senate recess that would otherwise require the advise and consent of the Senate, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, federal judges, directors of federal agencies, and members of federal boards and commissions -- even Supreme Court Justices.
Since 1791, 15 Supreme Court Justices began their tenure with a recess appointment, the most recent being Justice Potter Stewart in 1958.
President Clinton has now made 56 recess appointments in his 6 ½ years, the last being James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on June 4, 1999.
President Bush made 77 recess appointments during his 4 year tenure, and in 8 years as President, Ronald Reagan made 243 such appointments. President Carter made 68 recess appointments over 4 years in office.
President Bush: 106 recess appointments, including Bolton
President Clinton: 140 recess appointments over two terms.
their nazi loving,never thinking,moronic voters will believe this...90% of minorities,feminists,liberals,aclu lawyers,all pro-choicers, every NEA teacher in the country,anarchists,and of course every poor person sucking at the government tit...Remember,if their people don't believe this they will lose their self esteem and thats more important than anything else in life....
OH SHUT UP
Allow me to expand on your point, the liberals are pissed because they are losing filibusters
How about Eisenhower: 3 Supremes, or JFK, Thurgood Marshall, LOL.
All too true..but I make a prediction. IF the Dems get back into the Oval Office, the media will switch sides again. They will portray any Republican filibuster as illegitamate. We will hear the same as we are now from Schumer and his ilk...that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was DIFFERENT when she refused to answer the kinds of questions Schumer is going to ask Roberts. And the MSM (IF they have any power left by the time the Dems actually get into the Oval Office) will let it go by.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
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.