« Shit? Meet Fan. | Main | Wave to Ideology »

August 01, 2005

On Bolton, On Blitzer, On Cheney and Condi

Bolton, as you no doubt know, just got himself a recess appointment. I tend to think this is excellent news for our effectiveness at the UN: not only will other countries look at our deranged ambassador with the loathing and hostility his comments so richly deserve, but they'll know he was such an extremist that our own Senate, nutty though it may be, never approved him. I'm sure he'll be plenty listened to.

You know, or ignored, patronized, and sabotaged.

Over on the right, James Joyner doesn't think this is such a hot idea either:

This strikes me as a big mistake.

For one thing, U.N. Ambassador is hardly of sufficient importance to justify thumbing Senate Democrats in the eye this way. For another, John Bolton is hardly Robert Bork. Indeed, Bolton may be a case that epitimizes why the filibuster is sometimes a good thing.

One undertold story about Bush is that he sports a profound lack of respect for the autonomy and judgment of the institutions that comprise our government. Other presidents have been frustrated by Congress, stymied by the Supreme Court, furious at the bureaucracy, but most have carried a recognition that this was all part of the country and, aggravating though it may be, it had to be respected. Not Bush. Bolton goes in on recess, as has a past judge. Medicare and CAFTA get passed through illegal arm-twisting and deal-making while the intelligence agencies are brought under the purview of a loyalist. The guy wants government to work on his whim and he actively reshapes the place when it rebuffs him. Not the best quality in the official entrusted with strengthening and leading our Republic.

August 1, 2005 in Bush Administration | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83458b4fa69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Bolton, On Blitzer, On Cheney and Condi:

» Bush Does Recess Appointment To Send Bolton To UN from The Moderate Voice
President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, ... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 1, 2005 11:17:47 PM

Comments

In all fairness here, the Fillibuster and Recess appointments seem to be precisely balanced tactics.

The Fillibuster is a refusal of the Senate to vote on the appointment. The Recess appointment is exactly what you do when the Senate doesn't vote on your appointment.

I don't see how you can argue that this isn't a fair response, and even one that respects the institutions of Government.

You can think Bolton is a bad choic all you want, although I disagree, but to characterize this tactic as being unfair while supporting the Filibuster seems extremely partisan.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 1, 2005 12:55:34 PM

Not at all. The filibuster is there so the minority, in extreme cases, can do things like block appointments. The recess appointment isn't there so you can stomp on the minority. Bush, if he respected the Senate, should've come up with a more broadly acceptable pick, not snuck it in without a vote. It's not like Bolton is the only person, or even the best qualified person, able to do this job.

Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 1, 2005 1:09:42 PM

l'etat c'est moi!!!

Posted by: walden | Aug 1, 2005 1:16:51 PM

Actually, in all fairness, the Recess appointment is what you do when an office needs filling and it's going to be another two months before all the Congressmen can ride back all the way from the Far West (ie., the Alleghenies). It's an 18th century compromise with efficiency, meant to keep machinery government working when it's not yet possible for the democratically elected body to make its decision. The idea is that, although it would be simpler to just let the Executive appoint people outright, we're going to require Senate consent, and even the problem that it's inconvenient or inefficient is not going to be an excuse for ignoring the demands of Democracy.

The fillibuster, on the other hand, is what you do to make sure that, on a matter great importance, you don't move ahead unless you have a supermajority.

In both cases the underlying goal is to strengthen democratic review of Executive power. The fact that the two procedures could be proposed as "balancing" one another, as though this were some kind of cheap political tit-for-tat, is a measure of just how little respect democratic processes hold from supporters of the current Administration. Everything is a power trip, Democracy be damned.

I wish I could remember who it was that said this about the Bush crowd:

They don't want to govern. They want to rule.

Posted by: SV | Aug 1, 2005 1:23:03 PM

Bolton was never given an up or down vote. Most of the elected Senators would have confirmed him.

It was a balanced tactic to what the Democrats were trying to pull....they think they should have power when they are the minority party. Well, Susan, it just doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 1, 2005 1:35:57 PM

The Fillibuster is not a constitutional process, it is a Senate rule. It may be a good idea (I think it is, although it should be done differently) but it isn't required by law to exist.

Hence the whole 'nuclear option'

Recess appoints on the other hand are law.

There is absoluty nothing in the constitution that makes an appointment require a supermajority, and most people agree that if Bolton was voted on, he would win approval.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 1, 2005 1:37:01 PM

Bush's contempt for US government noted, there is also a hint of paranoia about his appointments. He can not suggest alternative candidates because he simply does not trust enough people to have any.

Posted by: sprocket | Aug 1, 2005 1:50:58 PM

Bush's contempt for US government noted, there is also a hint of paranoia about his appointments.

The sad truth is that most people outside the extreme left approve of his appointments as do most elected representatives. Don't believe me? Give them all up or down votes and see what happens. Democrats believe democracy is a great thing, if taken in moderation.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 1, 2005 1:58:16 PM

"U.N. Ambassador is hardly of sufficient importance to justify thumbing Senate Democrats in the eye this way."

Yes it is.

As someone mentioned earlier, if Bolton was given an up or down vote, he would be approved.

Senators, elected by the people, would confirm him. How is that extreme?

All I have to say to the left is 'keep it up'. When Bolton's recess appointment is done, we should have over 60 Republican Senators, then he will get an up or down vote.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 1, 2005 2:22:21 PM

Give them all up or down votes and see what happens.

The Senate is not a majoritarian body, so the outcome of that vote does not in any way signify the pulse of the country on this appointment.

With that said, does anyone have actual scientific poll numbers on the Bolton issue. I can't find anything using google. (I know, hard to believe!)

Posted by: Adrock | Aug 1, 2005 2:40:43 PM

The Senate is not a majoritarian body, so the outcome of that vote does not in any way signify the pulse of the country on this appointment.

Does this represent the pulse of the country?

George W Bush (R)- 60,608,582 Votes 51 %
John F Kerry (D)- 57,288,974 Votes 48 %

I think with a Republican Prsident, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives we should honor the will of the people, but the Democrats won't.

Doesn't the left understand that it is this type of behavior, children throwing a tantrum, that is turning Americans off to the Democrats?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 1, 2005 2:56:33 PM

Give him an up or down vote

Sure, just as soon as the senators feel they're adequately educated about the issue and appointee.

Or should the sole matter of interest be his nomination, rather than his competence and integrity?

Why do you hate democracy so, that you want our legislative representatives to make poorly informed votes?

Posted by: TJ | Aug 1, 2005 3:59:01 PM

I simply cannot imagine Bolton being effective -- let alone being the Reforminator -- in the UN, whether he came in the front door or the back. The guy's office will have the worst plumbing; his car and driver will always be at the end of the line; the photocopier will always be jamming; and no one will start a whipround to buy him a birthday gift. And yet everyone will be very, very diplomatic -- and in several different languages too.

Posted by: Grace Nearing | Aug 1, 2005 4:16:04 PM

There is absoluty nothing in the constitution that makes an appointment require a supermajority,

Sure there is: Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,..."

If that's too vague for you, remember there is no explicit language in the Constitution about Senate subcommittees, or the custom of the summer recess, or the United Nations.

Both the intent of the Constitutional language to increase democratic supervision of Executive Power, and long, long Senate tradition, recognize the filibuster as a means to protect the country from the Tyrrany of the Majority. Whether you believe something is right or wrong is a different matter: If a near-majority of the country does not, and it's something important, then ramming it through Congress via a power play is a good way to ensure disunion and the end of the democratic system.

The Tyranny of the Majority was recognized as the fatal flaw of democratic governments, and the protections against it were the particular genius of Madison. Anyone who claims to revere the Founders' intent, or at least falls back on the "Original Intent" argument to support what they want, must honor those protections if they have any kind of intellectual honesty.

Oh, wait. I think I see the problem...

Posted by: SV | Aug 1, 2005 4:42:22 PM

The sad truth is that most people outside the extreme left approve of his appointments as do most elected representatives.

The opposition to Bolton's appointment was bipartisan.

Posted by: sprocket | Aug 1, 2005 4:45:22 PM

The opposition to Bolton's appointment was bipartisan.

But Bolton would be approved by the majority of Senators if he was given an up or down vote.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 1, 2005 6:03:40 PM

Sure there is: Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,..."

And they are free to change the rules. How much will you cheerlead for them when *THAT* happens? I will be interested to see you laud the constitution at that point.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 1, 2005 6:31:28 PM

Didn't Clinton make recess appointments? How do these people explain their lack of outrage when it was Clinton making the appointments?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 1, 2005 8:28:48 PM

The fillibuster and recess appointment are both being used as political tools. They are exactly equal. In this case W has the ability to get his way even if the democrats don't like it.

If the Senate would actually bring Bolton to the floor for a vote he would be approved so this debate is all about political positioning nothing more. There has been no clear justification for denying Bolton the position, just political BS.

Clinton also used recess appointments in exactly the same fashion as W (Bill Lan Lee -- Asst. Attorney General).

m

Posted by: m | Aug 2, 2005 7:46:32 AM

The Fillibuster, so long as it continues to exist, remains an effective tool for blocking judicial appointments. Even if a Judge is appointed in this manner, it doesn't matter too much because the recess appointment will expire long before the term would.

It is obvious though that this tool will no longer work to block other appointments. Bush can effectively keep Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. as long as he wants, without Senate consent.

I am not thrilled with this outcome. I support the idea of advise and consent, but it is a natural, expected, and legal response to pure obstructionism for political gain.

And while it is important to restrain the tyranny of the majority, our Government is based upon the concept of majority rule. Keeping the majority from being a tyrant does not mean minority veto on everything.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 2, 2005 8:23:21 AM

Italics off.

I'll repeat, Captain Toke, even adding italics for you.

"The Senate is not a majoritarian body, so the outcome of that vote does not in any way signify the pulse of the country on this appointment."

No, I'm not saying that elected representatives have to poll the country before every vote and yes, I understand its a valid criticism. But shouldn't the elected representatives actually listen to the people? Once again, 2004 election results aside, I would think the President would be interested in making 2005 appointments based on the will of the people, and not just his (and yogur) retarded ideoloy. You know, lame duck and all. Thats why I'd like to know what people (the fickle public) actually think about John Bolton, not what happened 9 months ago.

Posted by: Adrock | Aug 2, 2005 9:58:33 AM

Now?

Posted by: Adrock | Aug 2, 2005 10:01:09 AM

I just can't turn off those italtics!!

"Didn't Clinton make recess appointments? How do these people explain their lack of outrage when it was Clinton making the appointments?"

Didn't the Republicans threaten to filibuster Clinton's nominees? How do these people explain their lack of outrage when it was Republican threatening filibusters?

Posted by: Adrock | Aug 2, 2005 10:04:11 AM

So who's outraged? My agenda is being served.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 2, 2005 10:23:41 AM

Adrock,
You call my ideology retarded, yet you can't understand that when Bush won in November, part of the reason he was re-elected was so he could run our economy, the war on terror, reforming the UN, selecting SCOTUS judges, etc.

The public did NOT want Kerry or Democrats making these decisions.

By the way more of the country agrees with Bush's ideology than with the Democrats. You need to accept the fact that the left is in the minority.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 2, 2005 11:03:57 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.