Few things make me more cynical about politics than commentators and politicians who are hypocrites. That's why I roll my eyes when I hear Democrats bellyache about the filibuster when they're in the majority and when I hear Republicans do the same thing when they're in charge. I don't see how these people can look at themselves in the mirror knowing what blatant hypocrites they are. What's fun is when one of these political hacks gets caught in the act of hypocrisy and called on the carpet. Like the filibuster, this goofy recess appointment clash that's in the US Supreme Court is another ******** controversy in which political affiliation is the only thing driving each side's position on the issue. As can be seen from the article, Norman Ornstein has done a complete 180 on the issue. He's all for the bogus recess appointments (bogus because they're being made while the Senate is in session and are therefore illegal) during the Obama Administration but lamented the same damn thing when Bush was doing it. I'm not one of these people who thinks you can't change your position on anything. It's perfectly fair for one's views to evolve and refine over time. In fact, they should. However, a person with integrity who does a 180 acknowledges the change and explains the reasons for the change. An unprincipled hack who's a big ***** does what Ornstein did - makes an unexplained switch and acts as though he's never believed any other way. I don't mean to pick on Ornstein, because what he has done is normal and accepted in politics today. He's one of many. In fact, I can't name a single political figure or commentator who has truly shown that he thinks the same rules should apply to everybody. It's pathetic, and we tolerate it. Sad.
__________________________________ It's pathetic and we tolerate it. Sad. __________________________________ Too true, and as long as we do tolerate it, it will not stop. Speaking about either side, no difference.
the senate is in session with a skeleton crew that cannot actuallly conduct business at all and is in session for the sole purpose of blocking appointments. Don't like Obama but in the same situation I would be tempted to make all the appointments then.
OK, these two thoughtful posts have convinced me you are correct legally. But this constant battle over appointments results in the presidents' not being able to have their chosen people in place to carry out whatever twisted agenda they have. This has been going on for a good while and both parties do it to one extent or another. It is not within the spirit of the constitution to dam up the appointments by trying to make the president, dem or republican, appoint someone he doesn't want.
the constitution says the president makes the appointments. The congress can advise and/or consent. It thus has the power to say no if the appointee is unacceptable for some reason. What makes them unacceptable for a legit reason? Many are denied a hearing just because they are the president's pick. We have lots of openings on the federal bench, including one in my town,m that cannot be filled because the two republican senators from texas are blocking them for no good reason. I have known several perfectly good, reasonable people who have been denied because the senatorial courtesy of allowing them to block them for no reason. The circuit court in DC has vacancies and the gop has shot down the appointees repeatedly because they don't want to surrender their slim majority there. They lost the last two presidential elections but it is only three more years until they once again get a shot maybe. ] Checks and balances are fine but should be based on some principle besides mere ideological dysfunction.
Overall, I agree with huisache. Though I disagree with Obama on the merits of these "recess" appointments, generally nominees should be voted on. It sets a terrible precedent to consistently muck up nominees and not even allow them to even have a vote.
