Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Confirmation Process

The Confirmation Process
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 11:52 AM
 
I decided to start a new thread rather than [further?] derail the debt ceiling thread.

Question(s):
What does everyone think the point of the confirmation process is?
What are legitimate and illegitimate criteria to reject a candidate on?
Is there a point where a filibuster or hold becomes detrimental or unethical?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 01:47 PM
 
What does everyone think the point of the confirmation process is?

In a nutshell .... "Checks and Balances". The point is to provide the upper body of the Legislative branch a degree of influence over the makeup of the Executive branch.

What are legitimate and illegitimate criteria to reject a candidate on?

The Constitution does not specify what is "legitimate" or "illegitimate" .... so from a constitutional perspective the body can reject a nominee simply because it's Tuesday if that is what it wanted to do. That being said, I believe The Framers intended such power to be used judiciously and perhaps didn't feel the need to provide instruction on what was or was not "statesmanlike" behavior. IMO, I believe any President is entitled to the team of his/her choice unless there are legitimate issues in the areas of qualifications or criminal background that somehow slipped past the vetting process. What is NOT legitimate is holding up a President's nominee because of personal vendettas or because s/he doesn't agree with a Senator's politics.

Is there a point where a filibuster or hold becomes detrimental or unethical?

There absolutely is a point when it becomes detrimental. Especially since the "filibuster" itself isn't directly authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to set its own rules ... and that's how the "filibuster" is indirectly authorized by the Constitution. But when a Senate "rule" is repeatedly utilized to essentially NULLIFY an "enumerated constitutional power of the President" well then things have gotten out of hand. In my view, the Senate has an obligation to have an up or down vote on a President's nominees that require confirmation. EXPEDITIOUSLY. Personally, I don't think the Senate should be able to "filibuster" executive branch nominees at all. That's something I think should be reserved for judicial branch nominees since they have life-time appointments.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 02:38 PM
 
Ah, I remember the squealing when the "Nuclear Option" was discussed to bust up the filibuster
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Ah, I remember the squealing when the "Nuclear Option" was discussed to bust up the filibuster
Either address the OP or leave.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 10:06 AM
 
Can I go straight for the Hagel?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can I go straight for the Hagel?
No. Start a thread about it if you want – it certainly deserves one.

I'm trying to see what people's impressions/interpretations are, as well as the possible partisan divide. Particularly since I have only the most superficial of knowledge pertaining the the OP.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No. Start a thread about it if you want
That sounds suspiciously like effort.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That sounds suspiciously like effort.
You start all manner of thread. You're just afraid it might be a good one.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 10:57 AM
 
Precisely the opposite. Much easier to infest your thread like a maggot.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 10:58 AM
 
They spend to much time doing allot of stuff that doesn't need doing. This confirmation process crap included.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Either address the OP or leave.
It beomes unethical when you oppose the nominee because of who nominated them, or because you don't like their philosphy. Miguel Estrada comes to mind. His nominatation was filibustered, as were other W judicial nominees. This was when voting on a rules change, AKA the "Nuclear Option," was first discussed.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It beomes unethical when you oppose the nominee because of who nominated them, or because you don't like their philosphy.
This addresses my second question. Thank you.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2013, 10:42 AM
 
What does everyone think the point of the confirmation process is?
An opportunity for the legislative branches to weigh in on posts that are not otherwise subjected to an electorate; an indirect means of giving the people some say through their elected representatives.

What are legitimate and illegitimate criteria to reject a candidate on?
If you're using precedent as a gauge of legitimacy, there is really no litmus for opposition or confirmation and can be contingent upon a host of matters up to and including mere political leverage. Again, these are unelected posts and can be used to tilt the balance of powers toward the Executive Branch. For whatever reason, judging by the number of czar appointments; government got 4 times more complicated under Bush than it was under Clinton, and is now 2 times more complicated than it was under Bush. A legitimate criteria for opposition might be the necessity of yet another post, having nothing to do with a person or policy at all.

Is there a point where a filibuster or hold becomes detrimental or unethical?
They can certainly be detrimental to the agenda du jour and might be gauged by proponents of the agenda as unethical, but this is entirely subjective. The filibuster is a Constitutionally-sound principle under a Republic to counter mob-rules governing. One might argue that the process of defining filibuster as disagreement and filing cloture against it to avoid debate and obfuscate the legislative process as unethical; also subject to whichever's party is inconvenienced by the move.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 11:08 AM
 
Thanks to OAW and ebuddy. Would have liked to get more responses for diversity, but whatever.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2