Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Lerkfish · Jan 16, 2004, 09:53 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush used executive powers Friday to bypass Congress and grant a spot on the federal appeals bench to U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, stoking a long-simmering feud with Senate Democrats over judicial nominations.

If you read the entire story, theres some ambiguity to it, and some quoted democrats appear a bit rabid in opposition to what is essentially a legal move, but the thing that I find most amusing is when Bush says:

"Again I call on the Senate to stop playing politics with the American judicial system and to give my nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve."

er....george? you appointed him during a recess so the senate CAN"T vote...right? Who is really playing politics, then?

another intersting tidbit:

Democrats have accused Pickering of supporting segregation as a young man, and promoting anti-abortion and anti-voting rights views as a state lawmaker, The Associated Press reported. They also have said they wouldn't be able to trust him to keep his conservative opinions out of his work on the federal appeals court.

osiris · Jan 16, 2004, 11:20 PM

What a wonderful system of checks and balances we have. It should be mandatory that 'our leaders' be called to such meetings and be forced to vote, or whatever the hell it is they do.

What really bothers me about Bush is his bastardly smugness and too-close-together beady little eyes that gleam "I know a secret" . It seems as though he's always sneaking around, pushing things through congress under the cover of night, or during congressional recess. It just seems all so wrong.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 17, 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by osiris:
What a wonderful system of checks and balances we have. It should be mandatory that 'our leaders' be called to such meetings and be forced to vote, or whatever the hell it is they do.

I agree. Let the full Senate vote on nominees. It's not right for a handful of Senators acting on the orders of special interests to prevent the majority of Senators from giving their advice and consent. Vote them up, or vote them down. Don't just bring the whole process to a halt because you are scared the majority will disagree with you.

NYCFarmboy · Jan 17, 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree. Let the full Senate vote on nominees. It's not right for a handful of Senators acting on the orders of special interests to prevent the majority of Senators from giving their advice and consent. Vote them up, or vote them down. Don't just bring the whole process to a halt because you are scared the majority will disagree with you.

Millennium · Jan 17, 2004, 08:46 AM

I have to admit, there are two sides to this issue.

If this is actually a legal most, then Bush was wrong to do it, because he didn't allow the vote to take place.

Even if it weren't, however, it is worth noting that the Senate also is not allowing votes to take place. Instead one side -usually the Democrats in this administration, but Republicans have done it in the past- filibusters the issue until the other side decides to move onto something else. This assures that no vote can ever take place on these issues.

So in the end, you have a President who is undermining the democratic process by not allowing votes to take place, and you have... a Congress which is undermining the democratic process by not allowing votes to take place.

This is ridiculous. It is true that Republicans have used this maneuver in the past, and it was just as wrong then as it is now. But it has to end sometime. It's time that the Senate completely stop recognizing the filibuster as a legitimate tactic. It serves no purpose other than to delay votes; in fact, that explicitly is its stated purpose. It is an undemocratic and childish form of politics which needs to stop.

vmarks · Jan 17, 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have to admit, there are two sides to this issue.

If this is actually a legal most, then Bush was wrong to do it, because he didn't allow the vote to take place.

Even if it weren't, however, it is worth noting that the Senate also is not allowing votes to take place. Instead one side -usually the Democrats in this administration, but Republicans have done it in the past- filibusters the issue until the other side decides to move onto something else. This assures that no vote can ever take place on these issues.

So in the end, you have a President who is undermining the democratic process by not allowing votes to take place, and you have... a Congress which is undermining the democratic process by not allowing votes to take place.

This is ridiculous. It is true that Republicans have used this maneuver in the past, and it was just as wrong then as it is now. But it has to end sometime. It's time that the Senate completely stop recognizing the filibuster as a legitimate tactic. It serves no purpose other than to delay votes; in fact, that explicitly is its stated purpose. It is an undemocratic and childish form of politics which needs to stop.

So there's no utility in filibuster as a means of preventing tyranny by majority?

Not that I like filibuster more than anyone else, I'd just like to consider the positive aspects of it before doing away with it as you suggest.

The Ayatollah · Jan 17, 2004, 09:48 AM

the dems are dirtbags for not letting through a vote, just as the republicans were under clinton. they're all politicians, and the people are the real losers.

ghost_flash · Jan 17, 2004, 10:02 AM

I don't think I recall republicans being anywhere near the skill level at philibustering as the democrats were or are.

Why not let a vote go through? I think they required democrats to vote in favor anyway. Am I correct or wrong?

NYCFarmboy · Jan 17, 2004, 10:44 AM

Clinton did the same thing..he appointed judges using the same procedure Bush just used....as Republicans were blocking his appointments as well.

It is perfectly constitutional. The appointment is only good until the next Congress convenes then it has to be approved to be a lifetime appointment.

boots · Jan 17, 2004, 11:12 AM

I guess I'm not too upset by this. Both sides are being pig-headed (nothing new there), and this is a legitimate way of doing it. It was used a lot pre-1850's, though not for very controversial reasons, and has been used like this a number of times in the not-to distant past. By both sides.

If he turns out to be a really sucky judge, the higher courts will more often over-rule him. The scary thing is when it gets used on the Supreme Court...thank goodness we usually don't have multiple vacancies during any one presidential term.

spacefreak · Jan 17, 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by osiris:
It seems as though he's always sneaking around, pushing things through congress under the cover of night, or during congressional recess.

Like combing through the White House offices in search of cute, susceptible interns.

NYCFarmboy · Jan 17, 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Like combing through the White House offices in search of cute, susceptible interns.

The one saving grace of the Clinton years.

Lerkfish · Jan 17, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Like combing through the White House offices in search of cute, susceptible interns.

hm. bringing up monica lewinksy here is so on topic.

osiris · Jan 17, 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm. bringing up monica lewinksy here is so on topic.

and quite typical.

davesimondotcom · Jan 17, 2004, 04:19 PM

The difference is that Pickering isn't given the appointment for life under a recess appointment.

However, if someone is going to complain about the Senate not getting an up or down vote on someone because the President appoints a judge on recess, the Senate has nobody to blame but themselves, because they haven't given certain appointees up or down votes anyway.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 17, 2004, 07:05 PM

Interesting trivia: Thurgood Marshall was a recess appointment to the Second Circuit. Eisenhower also appointed three members of the Supreme Court that way. They were Earl Warren, Potter Stewart, and William Brennan.

boots · Jan 18, 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting trivia: Thurgood Marshall was a recess appointment to the Second Circuit. Eisenhower also appointed three members of the Supreme Court that way. They were Earl Warren, Potter Stewart, and William Brennan.

This is why it doesn't bother me too much. He get appointed for a year, then he gets the chance to prove his critics wrong or right. Sometimes you can't tell what a judge is going to do. Look at O'Conner on the SC.

BlackGriffen · Jan 18, 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by boots:
This is why it doesn't bother me too much. He get appointed for a year, then he gets the chance to prove his critics wrong or right. Sometimes you can't tell what a judge is going to do. Look at O'Conner on the SC.

Oh, this only lasts for a year?

That doesn't bug me nearly as much.

BG

Lerkfish · Jan 18, 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Oh, this only lasts for a year?

That doesn't bug me nearly as much.

BG

an election year.

wonder if that will come into play?

at any rate, as I stated earlier, this move is not unprecedented, nor is it illegal as far as I can tell. MY problem was with the president saying he did this because congress was playing politics with the voting....that's highly hypocritical, seeing as he made an end run around them for political reasons.