MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   The Confirmation Process (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/498213/the-confirmation-process/)

 
The Final Dakar Feb 19, 2013 10:52 AM
The Confirmation Process
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 Feb 19, 2013 12:47 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
 
Chongo Feb 19, 2013 01:38 PM
Ah, I remember the squealing when the "Nuclear Option" was discussed to bust up the filibuster
 
The Final Dakar Feb 19, 2013 01:40 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4218195)
Ah, I remember the squealing when the "Nuclear Option" was discussed to bust up the filibuster
Either address the OP or leave.
 
subego Feb 20, 2013 09:06 AM
Can I go straight for the Hagel?
 
The Final Dakar Feb 20, 2013 09:17 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4218322)
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.
 
subego Feb 20, 2013 09:39 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4218326)
No. Start a thread about it if you want
That sounds suspiciously like effort.
 
The Final Dakar Feb 20, 2013 09:41 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4218327)
That sounds suspiciously like effort.
You start all manner of thread. You're just afraid it might be a good one.
 
subego Feb 20, 2013 09:57 AM
Precisely the opposite. Much easier to infest your thread like a maggot.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Feb 20, 2013 09:58 AM
They spend to much time doing allot of stuff that doesn't need doing. This confirmation process crap included.
 
Chongo Feb 20, 2013 11:38 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4218197)
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 Final Dakar Feb 20, 2013 11:43 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4218366)
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.
 
ebuddy Feb 23, 2013 09:42 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.
 
The Final Dakar Feb 27, 2013 10:08 AM
Thanks to OAW and ebuddy. Would have liked to get more responses for diversity, but whatever.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:19 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2