Letters to the Editor
-
Can we say "recess appointment"?
Whatever it takes -- repeated blocking of nominees, filibustering, protracted hearings -- it is critical that it be done in order to restore integrity to the DOJ. A less-than-independent replacement as Attorney General will be entirely the fault of Democrats if they allow it to happen.
Great advice for helping out the Republicans. There's nothing like blatant Democrat partisanship to advance our agenda. This could be a win-win for Bush.
-
I spoke w/ a staffer in Reid's office this morning...
...asked her to get on the phone and ask Sen. Reid to call the Senate back into emergency session NOW, in order to avoid a recess appointment. Was I overreacting?
-
This, more than the midterms, will tell us where precisely Congress stands.
Will the Democratic leadership really stand on principle and deny the President his (doubtless unqualified) choice, whoever or whatever that choice ultimately proves?
Cynicism leads me to think they'll approve whoever President Bush sends.
But that slender thread of irrational hope let's me think they'll actually start governing here.
-
Bamage: short answer, no.
Is there anything to prevent Bush from making a recess appointment? I assume he will if it is at all possible, "gentleman's agreement" with Reid or no.
-
two words: recess appointments
Glenn, you're right of course, except that you somehow underestimate how dishonorable Bush and his people are.
You are relying on Bush to keep his word to Harry Reid that he would make no recess appointments, a promise he made in response to Reid's threat to keep the Senate nominally in session during the August recess.
I always had the feeling that Gonzales would resign during the August recess and be replaced by a recess appointment, but I too was sucked into a false set of security by the Bush/Reid deal.
It was a trick. Bush will use recess appointments to appoint Chertoff Attorney-General and will appoint another member of his inner circle Secretary of Homeland Security, possibly announcing the appointments at today's press conference.
He'll offer two excuses for his treachery:
1) He actually only promised Reid that he wouldn't fill any EXISTING vacancies by recess appointments; since these are new, "unexpected" vacancies, they are not covered in the agreement.
2) He really truly meant to honor the agreement, but we can't have a long gap in filling a position so crucial to America's national security. Having a long vacancy in the Attorney General's office would send our enemies the wrong message about American strength and resolve.
Do you doubt for a minute that he would do it?
I hope I'm wrong, but is there anything in the last six years that makes you think he wouldn't?
-
There's a problem with this . . .
If the Dems refuse to confirm Bush's nominee(s), then an acting AG will continue in office, presumably the current solicitor general. So all Chimpy has to do is throw up one unconfirmable sacrificial lamb after another, and he retains control of the DoJ and the prosecutorial apparatus until January 20, 2009.
He doesn't need a new AG at all.
-
Break in case of Recess Appointment
I assume he will if it is at all possible, "gentleman's agreement" with Reid or no.
Fair enough. What would or could Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi likely or possibly do in response?
-
yer right..but
...they're gonna roll over. Count on it. The dems are so desperate to win in 2008, and they're convinced that the idiot swing voters that tend conservative (exurban soccer-moms are the most likely archetype here) are their ticket to a larger majority, that they'll confirm anyone who promises a quiet, uneventful year next year.
I'm more disgusted with the Dems every day.
-
The DoJ is dead, it doesn't matter if they fill the job
Or who they fill it with. It simply does not matter. If Bush can't have his personal valet in that job doing political hack work for him then the entire DoJ serves no useful purpose at all.
-
geez, Glenn
you now exactly how this will work out. Recess appointment of Chertoff. Democrats cry foul, "look it what GW has done this time, worst administration ever, 2008 blah blah blah" but don't do anything real.
-
Anonymous
The DoJ is dead, it doesn't matter if they fill the job
Or who they fill it with. It simply does not matter. If Bush can't have his personal valet in that job doing political hack work for him then the entire DoJ serves no useful purpose at all.
OK - let's just ignore it all then. It's all so hopeless. They are Winners. There is nothing poor us can do about any of it.
-
Reality check
The Democrats will rubberstamp whoever Bush nominates, if he even nominates anyone at all.
In fact, I doubt Bush will even make a recess appointment to the slot. He'll probably just name an "acting attorney general" and leave it at that.
-
So, are filibusters good or bad?
If it's appropriate for Democrats to filibuster Republican AG candidates, then it's appropriate for Republicans to do the same to judicial and exec branch nominees should a Democrat be elected in 08...
-
There doesn't need to be a recess appointment at all
The second-in-command at Justice is a Bushista too. Craig S. Morford will now step in for Gonzo and it will be business as usual.
-
You're right there's nothing that matters
With a year+ left and the DoJ reduced to political personnel decisions which will all be overturned in 2009 it's not entirely important. The DoJ has been on cruise control for years not actually doing any of the work of the DoJ. We could install Caligula's Horse and it wouldn't make a damn difference either way. I mean who on earth do you think George W. Bush is going to nominate? Oliver Wendell Holmes?, Solomon? Or Harriet Myers housekeepers husbands RNC operative from back in the day? You're talking about an administration that both John Ashcroft and Ted Olsen couldn't stomach.
-
Not any more. Patrick Fitzgerald for Attorney General
"The President is certainly entitled to choose someone who is generally compatible with him ideologically,..."
I disagree. Not when his ideology is corrupt authoritarianism. I think the Senate should refuse to confirm anyone short of the proven independent stature of Patrick Fitzgerald.
-
yes, contact your senators
The notion that, after Katrina and Michael Brown and FEMA, the Democrats would let Bush appoint anyone to any position sets what little hair I have left on fire every time I think about it. But they did--Roberts was the first after that, if I remember right. Let's hope that wherever they are this August, they're hearing what the majority of their constituents are saying about rolling over for Bush rather than what the Beltway is saying, and this will be the time it sinks in.
I've already written my senators.