djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 12:34:14 GMT -5
I personally think a President who in his second term has made more than half his ambassadorial appointments based on campaign donations and party-political considerations needs all the advice and consent he can get.
Ask yourself what the purpose of the Senate's duty to advise and consent must be. If it is the case that the President can, within his executive whim, appoint whoever he wishes to any office of the executive branch, then there were no need for Senate involvement in that process. If it is the case that the Senate involvement is ceremonial or tokenistic, then there were no need for the Constitution to treat recess appointments as specially limited, as it does.
you are assuming that the Senate is functioning in a way that is post-infantile. i am not. the filibuster should only be used sparingly to be effective, imo. blocking judicial appointments "just because" doesn't really fall into the limited sense which it has and should be used, imo.
The argument that a simple majority were sufficient in every case
bzzzzzzzzt. i won't entertain a reducio ad absurdum, here, phoenix. i specifically stated that i object to the use of filibuster for presidential appointments, not for "every case".
belies the democratic truth that the minority may have valid objections that deserve a hearing. Majoritarian rulemaking is always detrimental to debate and comity in a deliberative assembly, although it undeniably accelerates decisionmaking. In my opinion, very few decisions of national moment are made better in haste, so the 'advantage' of being able to treat the Senate as if it were composed entirely of Democrats, rather than mostly of Democrats, is a small one.
if a judicial appointment is really flawed, i would guess that the majority would vote against him, irrespective of party. if not, i see no reason on god's green planet that a minority should be able to block a NON-objectionable appointment.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 12:39:30 GMT -5
But you're imputing wisdom in appointments to a President who manifestly doesn't demonstrate it.
Whether the appointments were blocked "just because" or whether there was grounds - whether, for example, there's actually a legitimate objection to appointing judges for their liberal bias and tendency to "empathize" from the bench rather than, y'know, apply the law - depends on what side you're taking at the outset.
The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent, not to rubberstamp and patronize.
And changing the rules to presuppose infantile behavior from the minority party is hardly an incentive to improve the functioning of the Senate; it merely institutionalizes infantile behavior.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 12:41:47 GMT -5
In every presidential appointment? You won't dodge a reductio, either. You made a general statement about presidential appointments that effectively asserts the President knows better than the Senate, in defiance of the constitutional assertion to the contrary. Own it.
So you assume the majority is post-infantile?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2014 13:40:40 GMT -5
... The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent, not to rubberstamp and patronize. ...
Advise: Talk about who should be appointed. Consent: Up or down vote. That is their constitutional duty.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 13:41:49 GMT -5
But you're imputing wisdom in appointments to a President who manifestly doesn't demonstrate it.
really? what unwise appointments has Obama made?
Whether the appointments were blocked "just because" or whether there was grounds - whether, for example, there's actually a legitimate objection to appointing judges for their liberal bias and tendency to "empathize" from the bench rather than, y'know, apply the law - depends on what side you're taking at the outset.
that is not really true. if the objections had any validity, then the final vote would demonstrate it. that has not been the typical vote. the typical vote has been that the vast majority have favored the appointments, which demonstrated that the filibuster was indeed "just because".
The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent, not to rubberstamp and patronize.
the Senate can fulfill that duty by bringing appointments to a vote.
And changing the rules to presuppose infantile behavior from the minority party is hardly an incentive to improve the functioning of the Senate; it merely institutionalizes infantile behavior.
the result being that appointments which are generally uncontroversial are made in very short order, i would think that this would be a very satisfying result for both parties.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 17, 2014 13:46:30 GMT -5
Boys, boys. Can't we all just agree that judicial appointments are inevitability lousy regardless of whether they occur by Presidential fiat or by a rebellious Senate? I daresay to reject such a conclusion is downright unscientific.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 13:46:36 GMT -5
In every presidential appointment?
no. SCOTUS appointments have been excluded.
You won't dodge a reductio, either. You made a general statement about presidential appointments that effectively asserts the President knows better than the Senate, in defiance of the constitutional assertion to the contrary. Own it.
i said nothing of the kind. the president can't make appointments without the Senate. you made that up. own it.
So you assume the majority is post-infantile? i assume that the majority is more or less in control. presidential appointments should ONLY be rejected when there are strong reservations about them. there have been virtually NO strong reservations to the POTUS's appointments. they are being rejected "just because". that is not a sufficient cause for filibuster, imo. note: i have carefully staked out what is my opinion, here. you are welcome to object to it. that is your right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 13:47:36 GMT -5
Boys, boys. Can't we all just agree that judicial appointments are inevitability lousy regardless of whether they occur by Presidential fiat or by a rebellious Senate? I daresay to reject such a conclusion is downright unscientific. no, i won't agree to that. i think the appointments are generally fine. i think the idea that somehow they have been "unwise" is pretty ridiculous, but i am willing to entertain it on the basis of fact.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 13:49:13 GMT -5
... The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent, not to rubberstamp and patronize. ...
Advise: Talk about who should be appointed. Consent: Up or down vote. That is their constitutional duty. And there was me thinking the Senate drafted its own rules. Can you just point me to the text in the Constitution that expands on "advise and consent?" Ta very much.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2014 13:55:12 GMT -5
Advise: Talk about who should be appointed. Consent: Up or down vote. That is their constitutional duty. And there was me thinking the Senate drafted its own rules. Can you just point me to the text in the Constitution that expands on "advise and consent?" Ta very much. There is that point where words mean what they mean.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 17, 2014 13:57:15 GMT -5
Boys, boys. Can't we all just agree that judicial appointments are inevitability lousy regardless of whether they occur by Presidential fiat or by a rebellious Senate? I daresay to reject such a conclusion is downright unscientific. no, i won't agree to that. i think the appointments are generally fine. i think the idea that somehow they have been "unwise" is pretty ridiculous, but i am willing to entertain it on the basis of fact. I could go on for pages about Eric Holder and Tim Geithner, but we've already been down that road. I don't know if it's in the scope of appointees that you're arguing about, but I happened across this just last night. Daily Show rips Obama and Democrats for being so corruptJon Stewart on The Daily Show Wednesday night ripped into the Obama administration for their recent appointees to various ambassadorships.
Stewart began his segment by recounting an argument he had gotten into with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on his program.
Stewart alleged all of Washington was corrupt, while Pelosi said that if it was corrupt it was only made that way by Republicans. Using the president’s recent ambassadorship nominees as an example, Stewart proved Pelosi wrong.
Stewart was fascinated that many of the appointees haven’t even been to appointed countries, with one alleging he didn’t know much about the country he was supposed to act as official liaison to. When trying to determine why some of the nominees could seem so oblivious to their prospective posts, Stewart focused on one very important thing.
“It definitely couldn’t be because the new Norway nominee raised $850,000 for Obama’s re-election campaign, or the Argentinian one raised $500,000 or the Icelandic one bundled $1.6 million, that would mean that not only would Democrats be seen as corrupt (but Nancy Pelosi told me personally only Republicans are) that Iceland costs like three times more than Argentina,” Stewart said, mocking the Democrat’s for their hypocrisy. I mean it's pretty bad when comedians on your own side are going after you. Does this smack of sense and wisdom to you?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:05:49 GMT -5
In an earlier post, I alluded to ambassadorial appointments.
www.bdlive.co.za/world/americas/2014/02/17/obama-ambassador-nominees-spark-an-uproar
The wisdom of his recess appointments is a function of their likely impact on future presidents' ability to exercise this power, since he was the first one in history damfool enough to dictate to the Senate when it was in recess:
www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-recap-an-uneasy-day-for-presidential-power/
The self-serving wisdom of packing judicial benches with appointees that the minority party strongly oppose has a very short horizon, and doesn't serve the national interest. Obama's not breaking new ground here, unlike the recess appointment example, but he's being enabled by the Senate Majority to go further than most. We're not quite at the FDR stage of threatening to unilaterally expanding the bench to pack it with liberal majorities, and in fact neither Kagan nor Sotomayor are wildly radical legislators from the bench - but there are courts below SCOTUS, and the packing of these is of concern to the minority party.
Most of the things elected representatives do are reversible within an election cycle. Appointments to the judiciary are an exception. Back in 2005, when Senate Democrats held up ten judicial appointments of the Bush administration, Senate Republicans negotiated and struck a deal that kept the "nuclear option" off the table. Under the current Senate leadership, filibuster is practically the only instrument available to the minority party to have any say at all in the business of the Senate.
I submit that it is, in principle, unwise for a President in a divided country to appoint candidates for any office that can't find any support from the minority party - and, for example, to nominate campaign bundlers to ambassadorships when they misidentify the governments of the country they're to be ambassador to isn't a hallmark of wisdom either.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:07:15 GMT -5
"Consent" does not necessarily mean "up and down vote." It means "agreement between parties" - the parties to the agreement in this case are the President and the Senate, being a body of 100 members and not 50-odd. For the President and the 50-odd to disregard the 40-odd minority members of the Senate is not "consent," it is "tyranny of the majority."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 14:09:46 GMT -5
no, i won't agree to that. i think the appointments are generally fine. i think the idea that somehow they have been "unwise" is pretty ridiculous, but i am willing to entertain it on the basis of fact. I could go on for pages about Eric Holder and Tim Geithner, but we've already been down that road. let's start with them. how were those appointments unwise? were these candidates unqualified? next: what was the confirmation vote on them? did the GOP have the votes to block? or was it party line?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 14:10:32 GMT -5
"Consent" does not necessarily mean "up and down vote." It means "agreement between parties" - the parties to the agreement in this case are the President and the Senate, being a body of 100 members and not 50-odd. For the President and the 50-odd to disregard the 40-odd minority members of the Senate is not "consent," it is "tyranny of the majority." a responsible minority would not deploy obstruction nearly every time they had the chance.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 17, 2014 14:23:41 GMT -5
I could go on for pages about Eric Holder and Tim Geithner, but we've already been down that road. let's start with them. how were those appointments unwise? were these candidates unqualified? next: what was the confirmation vote on them? did the GOP have the votes to block? or was it party line? I believe it was party line on Sec. Holder, but Mr. Geithner had support from both sides of the aisles. Neither was "unqualified" by any technical definition, although many of their biggest blunders stemmed directly from flawed ideologies. And before you ask: No, I don't believe Pres. Obama knew or believed those ideologies were flawed when he made the appointments. Does ignorance make a man (or a body of men) "unwise"? I tend to think so.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2014 14:35:19 GMT -5
... "tyranny of the majority." Not getting your own way is only "tyranny" to two year olds (or those with that mentality).
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:42:02 GMT -5
"Consent" does not necessarily mean "up and down vote." It means "agreement between parties" - the parties to the agreement in this case are the President and the Senate, being a body of 100 members and not 50-odd. For the President and the 50-odd to disregard the 40-odd minority members of the Senate is not "consent," it is "tyranny of the majority." a responsible minority would not deploy obstruction nearly every time they had the chance. They would if the majority exercised every opportunity to disregard anything but their own caucus.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:42:55 GMT -5
Which is one of the reasons that the Founders vested the authority for the decision in the 100 persons of the Senate as well as the one person of the President.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:44:14 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:45:11 GMT -5
What's your opinion on the appropriateness of discharge petitions, dj?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 14:51:04 GMT -5
I just re-read #27 and #29.
Since you weren't referring to political parties, but to 'parties' in the sense of 'parties to the process' ... it appears that you're advocating for an imperial Presidency, wherein the President can at his whim appoint horses Consul and so on.
Is the fall of the American Empire so imminent?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 17, 2014 14:54:50 GMT -5
I just re-read #27 and #29.
Since you weren't referring to political parties, but to 'parties' in the sense of 'parties to the process' ... it appears that you're advocating for an imperial Presidency, wherein the President can at his whim appoint horses Consul and so on.
Is the fall of the American Empire so imminent? Pres: "You've done a heckuva job, Brownie." Brownie: *neeeeigh*
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 15:32:09 GMT -5
let's start with them. how were those appointments unwise? were these candidates unqualified? next: what was the confirmation vote on them? did the GOP have the votes to block? or was it party line? I believe it was party line on Sec. Holder, but Mr. Geithner had support from both sides of the aisles. Neither was "unqualified" by any technical definition, although many of their biggest blunders stemmed directly from flawed ideologies. And before you ask: No, I don't believe Pres. Obama knew or believed those ideologies were flawed when he made the appointments. Does ignorance make a man (or a body of men) "unwise"? I tend to think so. i don't expect my president to know everything about everything. so then it falls to advisors. who would have advised him on Holder? edit: Holder got 75 votes, and he was not filibustered.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 15:34:27 GMT -5
I just re-read #27 and #29.
Since you weren't referring to political parties,
oh, i was referring to parties, alright. but you pointed out that it would take more than one party to block an appt now, and so i relented and said that "parties" were simply a convenient way of framing the discussion. that is still true.
but to 'parties' in the sense of 'parties to the process' ... it appears that you're advocating for an imperial Presidency, wherein the President can at his whim appoint horses Consul and so on.
Is the fall of the American Empire so imminent? please step away from this discussion and ask yourself this: have i EVER advocated for an imperial presidency? EVER?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 15:35:27 GMT -5
What's your opinion on the appropriateness of discharge petitions, dj? i think that items before the house should be brought to a vote. does that answer your question?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 15:36:32 GMT -5
a responsible minority would not deploy obstruction nearly every time they had the chance. They would if the majority exercised every opportunity to disregard anything but their own caucus. i disagree with this (i think it fails on both necessary and sufficient grounds). so, let's move on, shall we?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 17, 2014 16:06:20 GMT -5
I just re-read #27 and #29.
Since you weren't referring to political parties,
oh, i was referring to parties, alright. but you pointed out that it would take more than one party to block an appt now, and so i relented and said that "parties" were simply a convenient way of framing the discussion. that is still true.
but to 'parties' in the sense of 'parties to the process' ... it appears that you're advocating for an imperial Presidency, wherein the President can at his whim appoint horses Consul and so on.
Is the fall of the American Empire so imminent? please step away from this discussion and ask yourself this: have i EVER advocated for an imperial presidency? EVER? Not in so many words. But acts under the Bush administration that you admitted were imperialistic in nature (e.g. senate recess appointments) have gotten the "that's how you get business done" DJ stamp of approval during the Obama administration. And if memory serves, you were one of the voices most insistent during the Bush administration that the constitutional definition of Executive Orders (which is that EOs are not legislation, but instead orders issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress) be rigorously upheld by the courts. Now that Pres. Obama is threatening to use EOs to bypass the US congress on everything from climate change to immigration, correct me if I'm wrong but we seem to be seeing "that's how you get business done" DJ again. In short, I don't think you're particularly fond of an imperial presidency, but it isn't the principal issue for you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 17:11:32 GMT -5
please step away from this discussion and ask yourself this: have i EVER advocated for an imperial presidency? EVER? Not in so many words. not in ANY words, Virgil. if you think otherwise, then you are either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresenting my positions.But acts under the Bush administration that you admitted were imperialistic in nature (e.g. senate recess appointments) have gotten the "that's how you get business done" DJ stamp of approval during the Obama administration. categorically false. the actions which i have condemned under Bush i have condemned under Obama.
edit: the reason i am HARDER on Bush than Obama is that, candidly, he showed way more of the sort of self-confident incompetence that many accuse Obama of than Obama. i would describe Obama's incompetence as average. it is the sort of incompetence exhibited by the last dozen or so presidents. nothing exceptional in that regard. Bush's incompetence really sets the standard. studying presidents back to Harding, i have never seen anything like it.
in terms of "imperial presidency", i would say that Obama is roughly the same as every president since Carter (with the possible exception of Reagan, who really outdid the others during Iran-Contra). and coming from his lawyerly background, i would indeed expect more of him, but his "imperialism" is not something that sets him apart.
And if memory serves, you were one of the voices most insistent during the Bush administration that the constitutional definition of Executive Orders (which is that EOs are not legislation, but instead orders issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress) be rigorously upheld by the courts. no. i never criticized EO's under Bush. you are mistaken.Now that Pres. Obama is threatening to use EOs to bypass the US congress on everything from climate change to immigration, correct me if I'm wrong but we seem to be seeing "that's how you get business done" DJ again. In short, I don't think you're particularly fond of an imperial presidency, but it isn't the principal issue for you. i am way way less than fond, Virgil. if you think otherwise, i would ask you to come up with specific citations. but more to the point, i am not doing so on this thread, or on this issue. this issue has to do with congressional authority. edit: moreover, i have been an outspoken critic of this administration in terms of deficit spending during times of economic growth, foreign wars, warrantless surveillance, indefinite detentions, drone warfare, and the upping of the PATRIOT Act. surely you could not have missed those things. i have never hesitated to criticize them. never.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 7:55:08 GMT -5
That chest-thumping aside, what reading should we apply to the combined assertions of #27 and #29?
You've vehemently denied the speciously plausible reading that "the President doesn't need advice from the Senate, the Senate should just be grateful it gets to agree with the President." So what was your point?
|
|