NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, President George W. Bush bypassed the senate to install
John Bolton as the new US ambassodor to the UN.
He blatantly did this because the majority of the senate, including
some republicans had taken a firm stance that Bolton was entirely
the wrong person for the position.

This is rather frightening, it raises questions about what Bush may
do next.

I do not have much of an idea of what Bolton stands for, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the proud democratic process that is a tenant of
the american system has been violated.

Alright, now people from both sides, tell me what you think.
Tell me your opinion on whether or not this was the right thing
for our president to do.

Lets just hope he dosnt go to far extreme im sure he int a mad tinpot dictater even with iraq and all

let the flamming begin :headbang:

This isn't the first time he or his friends have undermined democracy.

Technically speaking, he was within his constitutional powers. Congress was in recess. Therefore, the Chief executive can bypass the Senate with a "Recess Appointment". I believe that the Senate must confirm him once it is back in session.

Technically speaking, he was within his constitutional powers. Congress was in recess. Therefore, the Chief executive can bypass the Senate with a "Recess Appointment". I believe that the Senate must confirm him once it is back in session.

Bingo.

Clinton did the same thing with James Hormel IIRC. The Senate wasn't going to approve his post as ambassador to Luxembourg even though the country in question already approved of him, and Clinton bypassed the Senate by making a recess appointment.

It's a low down dirty trick, but Democrats have done the same thing to Republicans as well.

Bolton has the diplomatic skill of a rusted tin can stuffed into a moldy sack of potatoes.
I suppose Bush saved the Senate from the loss of credibility it would have had had it indeed confirmed Bolton, so we can thank him insofar.

Technically speaking, he was within his constitutional powers. Congress was in recess. Therefore, the Chief executive can bypass the Senate with a "Recess Appointment". I believe that the Senate must confirm him once it is back in session.They'll actually have to wait until 2007, after a Representative election has taken place and a new crop of Senators is sworn in.

They'll actually have to wait until 2007, after a Representative election has taken place.

I stand corrected.

Independantly of my opinions concerning Bush, Bolton, Democrats and Republicans, this was the wrong thing to do in a nation that is trying to present itself as the defender of democracy.

If any other country had bypassed their democratic processes in this way, I am fairly sure that the US would be making media capital out of it.

Independantly of my opinions concerning Bush, Bolton, Democrats and Republicans, this was the wrong thing to do in a nation that is trying to present itself as the defender of democracy.

If any other country had bypassed their democratic processes in this way, I am fairly sure that the US would be making media capital out of it.
Reminds me of this (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg)

Independantly of my opinions concerning Bush, Bolton, Democrats and Republicans, this was the wrong thing to do in a nation that is trying to present itself as the defender of democracy.

If any other country had bypassed their democratic processes in this way, I am fairly sure that the US would be making media capital out of it.
Only if they had some resource or monetary wealth to consider. I don't see the US doing anything about Zimbabwe or Robert Mugabe.

I don't remember me or any of my neighbors voting for any other UN ambassador, so it appears (at least in my eye) that we have been "sidestepping democracy" for quite some time.

Ach...things would be so much easier if I were in charge... :p

Independantly of my opinions concerning Bush, Bolton, Democrats and Republicans, this was the wrong thing to do in a nation that is trying to present itself as the defender of democracy.

If any other country had bypassed their democratic processes in this way, I am fairly sure that the US would be making media capital out of it.
Here's a case where time certainly will tell the story. I expect he will ruffle a few feathers at the UN, but the organization needs reform. Just appointing another go-along to get-along diplomat isn't going to initiate any of the reforms that the UN needs so badly.

The appointment of Bolton is certainly the proper thing to do, considering that the delays of Congress have left us without any representation in the UN.

Today, President George W. Bush bypassed the senate to install
John Bolton as the new US ambassodor to the UN.
He blatantly did this because the majority of the senate, including
some republicans had taken a firm stance that Bolton was entirely
the wrong person for the position.

This is rather frightening, it raises questions about what Bush may
do next.

I do not have much of an idea of what Bolton stands for, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the proud democratic process that is a tenant of
the american system has been violated.

Alright, now people from both sides, tell me what you think.
Tell me your opinion on whether or not this was the right thing
for our president to do.
You really should do a bit of research before you post. This was not a "violation" of anything. President Clinton, for example, did the exact same thing. It's simply a perfectly valid, Constitutional way for a President whose nominees are being blocked to get them into office; nothing more, nothing less.

This isn't the first time he or his friends have undermined democracy.

Nor will it be the last. I've always found it amusing when one of them gets up and goes all patriotic regarding foreign policy, defending democracy when Bush blatently rigged the 2000 election! And even then he didn't win the popular vote!

Not that the UK is any better of course, our leading party only got 36% of the counted votes, never mind the low turn out. I think it works out as about 22% of all registered voters actually voted for Labour this time around.

Democracy is largely a farce.

Here's a case where time certainly will tell the story. I expect he will ruffle a few feathers at the UN, but the organization needs reform. Just appointing another go-along to get-along diplomat isn't going to initiate any of the reforms that the UN needs so badly.

The appointment of Bolton is certainly the proper thing to do, considering that the delays of Congress have left us without any representation in the UN.Bolton isn't going to reform. He's going to piss everyone off so that they'll think twice about reforming in a way he likes it, which will end in no reforms because the US won't ratify. Not that any reforms would be done anyway. The US would have to ratify in order for them to pass.
And it's not as though the reforms (http://www.un.org/reform/) weren't underway. It just sounds nice to keep telling yourself that.

I would have preferred Bolton's having at least been given an up or down vote on the floor. I don't blame Bush for his impatience, there's been partisan stalling on many appointments with no end in sight. It would be many more months before a UN appointment could be made with the current attitude, and unlikely the Dem's would consider anyone but their dream candidate.

I don't think the issue is so much Bolton, the man, but whether or not the UN needs reform and whether it's the US' job to do that. I don't think the Dem's see it that way, never will. With neither confirmation nor straight vote possible, Bush put his man in. It's not a violation of democracy, nor is it illegal, but it doesn't look good and I'm slightly sorry it went this way. Recess appointments have been done before, and I see this as a message from Bush to Democrats that there's work to be done in a less than perfect world.

I view Annan's reforms as too little and too late. Bolton can bring significant pressure on the process, pressure it needs to make necessary reforms. Bolton will not single-handedly change the UN into a US puppet, that's just not possible.

I think poorly enough of the UN that I believe that any positive changes are better than none, and may keep that institution from becoming from eventually going the way of the dinosaur. I hate to see the good part of the UN, the humanitarian aid people, be thrown out with the bathwater of the UN.

Nor will it be the last. I've always found it amusing when one of them gets up and goes all patriotic regarding foreign policy, defending democracy when Bush blatently rigged the 2000 election! And even then he didn't win the popular vote!

Not that the UK is any better of course, our leading party only got 36% of the counted votes, never mind the low turn out. I think it works out as about 22% of all registered voters actually voted for Labour this time around.

Democracy is largely a farce.
No. What's farcical is your post. Do ... your ... homework! Jeeze. Reading some of the grossly innacurate and misguided posts on here is far more frightening that anything I've heard Bush say or anything I've seen him do.

I don't think the issue is so much Bolton, the man, but whether or not the UN needs reform and whether it's the US' job to do that. I don't think the Dem's see it that way, never will.That's been the problem with the Rep's- they refuse to accept that Bolton is the idiot he's been proven to be and would rather send someone without any diplomatic skill to the UN.

No. What's farcical is your post. Do ... your ... homework! Jeeze. Reading some of the grossly innacurate and misguided posts on here is far more frightening that anything I've heard Bush say or anything I've seen him do.Ah, but none of the people here rule any powerful countries. You have nothing to fear from us :D

That's been the problem with the Rep's- they refuse to accept that Bolton is the idiot he's been proven to be and would rather send someone without any diplomatic skill to the UN.

I think it has less to do with diplomatic qualifications then it does with attitude. This is the disagreement between the parties. The Republicans think it's time to kick some UN ass, so they found a guy they feel qualified to do that - and I expect they chose well enough. The Dem's want to maintain status quo, so an ass-kicker is the last thing they want.

Reading some of the grossly innacurate and misguided posts on here is far more frightening that anything I've heard Bush say or anything I've seen him do.
Wish I could say the same. I really do.

No. What's farcical is your post. Do ... your ... homework! Jeeze. Reading some of the grossly innacurate and misguided posts on here is far more frightening that anything I've heard Bush say or anything I've seen him do.

Uk election 2005:
Turnout: 61.3%
Labour share of vote: 35.3%
Labour seats: 356/646 = 55%
Of the possible 100% of all registered voters, Labour got 21.63%

They got most of the seats, just, but not most of the vote.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

That's pretty accurate actually.

As for the USA 2000 election, well, we all know the truth. Here is just one source of many: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2

And it may have been a close thing, but Bush did not win the popular vote: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/2000_USA_election.htm

Im curious as to how you consider refusing to even vote on the guy is a "democratic" process to begin with.

It's only the goddamn UN Ambassador post, at least he isn't doing this with, say, a supreme court nominee like the *evil* George Washington or Dwight Eisenhower.

Stop overreacting, the recess appointment is an established Constitutional power delegated to the executive.

I think it has less to do with diplomatic qualifications then it does with attitude. This is the disagreement between the parties. The Republicans think it's time to kick some UN ass, so they found a guy they feel qualified to do that - and I expect they chose well enough. The Dem's want to maintain status quo, so an ass-kicker is the last thing they want.
The Dem's think Bolton's an idiot, the Rep's are doing petty party politics.

As for the USA 2000 election, well, we all know the truth. Here is just one source of many: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2


Your source is a man that worked for the guardian newspaper? Why dont you just used Foxnews to prove the opposite. :rolleyes: People these days are so hiliariously sheepish, they crowd around only the viewpoints they want to hear, which gives rise to papers like the guardian or foxnews to begin with. Their propagandic ways are THE REAL PROBLEM here.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2


You know what they say about assuming it makes an ass out of you and me.

Of course, he also charges that the Rs would steal the election in Florida in '02 and '04. And unless you're holding out on me with another source, I haven't seen any evidence of that occuring.

I'm bush like. I elected john bolton because he's a crazy son of a bitch, shit, I mean good moral person. The U.N. is in desperate need of reform, they stand in the way of me getting my "earl" and nobody stands in the way of me getting my "earl", shit, I mean helping oppressed peoples. So this is bushanomics here telling all those "laberals" to go to hell, those "laberals" are nothing but a bunch of homosexual marrying baby killers! ALL HAIL BUSHANOMICS ALL HAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your source is a man that worked for the guardian newspaper? Why dont you just used Foxnews to prove the opposite. :rolleyes: People these days are so hiliariously sheepish, they crowd around only the viewpoints they want to hear, which gives rise to papers like the guardian or foxnews to begin with. Their propagandic ways are THE REAL PROBLEM here.
Really, you should let him go on. The more the rabid types like this sew their sour grapes the more turned off the general public will be. I frankly enjoy watching a five-year temper-tantrum. -Says alot about them and spares me the trouble of saying it myself. Too bad it reflects on the more stable members of the DNC.

The Dem's think Bolton's an idiot, the Rep's are doing petty party politics.

Hmm, read your post again and determine who is petty.

I'm bush like. I elected john bolton because he's a crazy son of a bitch, shit, I mean good moral person. The U.N. is in desperate need of reform, they stand in the way of me getting my "earl" and nobody stands in the way of me getting my "earl", shit, I mean helping oppressed peoples. So this is bushanomics here telling all those "laberals" to go to hell, those "laberals" are nothing but a bunch of homosexual marrying baby killers! ALL HAIL BUSHANOMICS ALL HAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, lay of the flame-baiting and make a rational, readable argument.

When will everyone see that Bushanomics is the best poster on this forum!?

I think it has less to do with diplomatic qualifications then it does with attitude. This is the disagreement between the parties. The Republicans think it's time to kick some UN ass, so they found a guy they feel qualified to do that - and I expect they chose well enough. The Dem's want to maintain status quo, so an ass-kicker is the last thing they want.
I thought that the Republicans were the conservatives and the Democrats were supposed to be liberal. It seems to be the other way round.

Your source is a man that worked for the guardian newspaper? Why dont you just used Foxnews to prove the opposite. :rolleyes: People these days are so hiliariously sheepish, they crowd around only the viewpoints they want to hear, which gives rise to papers like the guardian or foxnews to begin with. Their propagandic ways are THE REAL PROBLEM here.

Wikipedia may be open to public edit, but it is regulated to remain neutral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

Look, plenty of people have done research into what happened in Florida, not just journalists. All the information I have ever seen agrees that the electoral register was "cleaned" before the election, including names of innocent people who were legally eligible to vote. And it is a fact that Fox announced Bush the winner prematurely.

It's your turn to show me a source that contradicts this information.

I know this news is 5 years old now, but to be honest, if this had happened in my country people wouldn't have just let it go by without argument. I don't really understand how any American can be ok with such obvious election rigging. Sorry, that's just my view.

You know what bush also did? He/ his administration paid a newsman.... Can't recall his name, But I read it in the newspaper...... to give false news about Iraq. That my friends is Wrong and unethical (I beleive its not legal, but I'm not to sure about that)

Oh - I just cracked up laughing when I saw this...

how very typical

Technically speaking, he was within his constitutional powers. Congress was in recess. Therefore, the Chief executive can bypass the Senate with a "Recess Appointment". I believe that the Senate must confirm him once it is back in session.

No, not "must".

Bolton's appointment lapses at the end of the next Senate session; and they can reject his nomination during said session.

I don't remember me or any of my neighbors voting for any other UN ambassador, so it appears (at least in my eye) that we have been "sidestepping democracy" for quite some time.

No, you and your neighbors elect officials to vote on it on your behalf. This time though, they didn't get to do that.

Say, is this democracy when the President uses or abuses his powers to get what he wants when it's rather clear all he is doing is putting all his buddies where he wants them like some Roman Emperor ...

I think this question is invalid. I voted for Bush so he could get his policies through. Bolton is the perfect man to light some fires under and organization that can't seem to do anything. If you ask me, the democrats are trying to bypass democracy by filibustering Bolton when he does have a majority backing in the senate. The democrats were preventing a VOTE on Bolton that he would have won. This is not how Bush would have prefered to send Bolton to the UN, but it is time to move now.

Technically speaking, he was within his constitutional powers. Congress was in recess. Therefore, the Chief executive can bypass the Senate with a "Recess Appointment". I believe that the Senate must confirm him once it is back in session.

The recess appointment power is intended to be an emergency measure when the position must be filled pronto, and congress isn't around to deliberate.

This isn't what he did. He stalled and stalled on a guy that congress wouldn't accept, and then stuck him in as soon as congress' back was turned.

The whole "technically he has the authority" argument is really insufficient. Technically he has the authority to launch nuclear missles, that doesn't make it right.

The recess appointment power is intended to be an emergency measure when the position must be filled pronto, and congress isn't around to deliberate.

You and others do realize this isn't the first time a recess appointment has been made. My pal Teddy Kennedy really pushed hard for recess appointments to avoid a defeat on the floor for Bill Lan Lee. Turns out Lee wasn't given a recess appointment, but rather an "acting" appointment. But that's another story.

This isn't what he did. He stalled and stalled on a guy that congress wouldn't accept, and then stuck him in as soon as congress' back was turned.

I think a good case has been made that Congress stalled by requesting ridiculous types and amounts of documents. That seems to be their tactic lately and I don't know why the Republicans can't figure out that they're the majority party.

Heh. There's a quote from The West Wing that I think is particularly appropriate for the situation.

"This is an abuse of the recess appointment. It's there for convenience. It's not there to circumvent the Senate's constitutional right to confirm nominees!"

"Neither is the filibuster. I'll put down my gun when you put down yours."

Today, President George W. Bush bypassed the senate to install
John Bolton as the new US ambassodor to the UN.
He blatantly did this because the majority of the senate, including
some republicans had taken a firm stance that Bolton was entirely
the wrong person for the position.

This is rather frightening, it raises questions about what Bush may
do next.

I do not have much of an idea of what Bolton stands for, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the proud democratic process that is a tenant of
the american system has been violated.

Alright, now people from both sides, tell me what you think.
Tell me your opinion on whether or not this was the right thing
for our president to do.

Recess appointments are constitutional and have been used to get past blockages before. This isn't sidestepping Democracy nor is it violating the US Constitution. I suggest people get facts straight before spouting off false rhetoric.

This isn't the first time he or his friends have undermined democracy.

Did Clinton undermine democracy with his recess appointees?

Only if they had some resource or monetary wealth to consider. I don't see the US doing anything about Zimbabwe or Robert Mugabe.

I don't see the UN doing anything about that either.

Im curious as to how you consider refusing to even vote on the guy is a "democratic" process to begin with.

It isn't "democratic" process when refusing to vote on someone. It is undemocratic to withold a vote because you simply don't like someone's views. Once a person gets out of committee, they should be voted up or down by the full senate.

By refusing that vote, you are being undemocratic and that is something that the Democratic (now there's a pun) Party seems to have forgotten.

No, not "must".

Bolton's appointment lapses at the end of the next Senate session; and they can reject his nomination during said session.

Or he could be re-appointed again :D

The recess appointment power is intended to be an emergency measure when the position must be filled pronto, and congress isn't around to deliberate.

Your saying that the UN Ambasssadorialship isn't a position that must be filled pronto? Oh brother! :rolleyes:

This isn't what he did. He stalled and stalled on a guy that congress wouldn't accept, and then stuck him in as soon as congress' back was turned.

This is revisionist history! Who wouldn't give him an up or down vote again? Oh yea! The DEMOCRATS! :rolleyes:

The whole "technically he has the authority" argument is really insufficient. Technically he has the authority to launch nuclear missles, that doesn't make it right.

Clinton used the recess appointments quite effectively. Do you approve of him doing that?

Well like the above nazi republican does not understand (he does, but does not admit as a extremist) is the fact that Bushes abuses democracy when it fits him. Remember the stopping of the recount and the way they made it impossible to vote for masses of Blacks in the state of Florida in 2000. Just because everybody knew then that he was not gone make it until they used "Tricky Dicks" (name it, Rove, Torture Rummy ao of the band) dirty style.

Same now, nice to see that they were so afraid of the senate, nice to know that it is the first time in history that the uS has to use this for sending someone to the US. They really had no better Republican for the job? One that is serious about it? Is that half talented scumbag the best they have in the US? Poor guys, poor reall Republicans for being so under the foot of the christian right and other marginals.

Well like the above nazi republican does not understand (he does, but does not admit as a extremist) is the fact that Bushes abuses democracy when it fits him.

Where you refering to me Planet XX? Sorry but I'm no nazi! And how did Bush abuse Democracy?

Remember the stopping of the recount and the way they made it impossible to vote for masses of Blacks in the state of Florida in 2000.

You also know that SCOTUS found that Florida Counties were using different set of recount material and didn't have a single way to recount right?

Just because everybody knew then that he was not gone make it until they used "Tricky Dicks" (name it, Rove, Torture Rummy ao of the band) dirty style.

And here we have the insightful insults of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party or from an anti-Bush european. Pick your pick.

Same now, nice to see that they were so afraid of the senate, nice to know that it is the first time in history that the uS has to use this for sending someone to the US.

Ok! Someone needs to go back and rethink. Did you know that it was the Democrats and NOT the republicans that have been stalling this issue?

They really had no better Republican for the job? One that is serious about it? Is that half talented scumbag the best they have in the US? Poor guys, poor reall Republicans for being so under the foot of the christian right and other marginals.

:rolleyes:

It should surpise no one that a proven liar like Bush has not a shred of credibility left and would resort to such a tactic.

Man, will I ever be glad in three more years when this idiot is only a bad memory. Just hope the country last three more years under his "leadership".

The wounds in America will have to heal long before they do around the world.

It's not like we didn't know Bush would use this window to appoint Bolton. Almost everything Bush does seems unconstitutional, in my opinion.

We've known for a long time that Bush is not bi-partisan, and he will eventually even cause a split in his own party. Bolton is not the right man for this job, although i do agree the UN needs reform. In order for parties to get reform you need someone that people respect. Bolton will cause more strife than unions and his America first policy will not sit well with representatives of other sovereign nations. Someone similar to John McCain is who Bush should have appointed.

If only the the Democrats could get some balls and win more seats in the Senate election in 2006. Then he couldn't get away with so much crap.

Your saying that the UN Ambasssadorialship isn't a position that must be filled pronto? Oh brother! :rolleyes:



This is revisionist history! Who wouldn't give him an up or down vote again? Oh yea! The DEMOCRATS! :rolleyes:



Clinton used the recess appointments quite effectively. Do you approve of him doing that?



people, we are talking about bush..... not clinton. just becuase we feel that what bush did was wrong, doesnt mean that we feel when clinton did it, it was ok.

In the past day or so we've seen Bush appoint Bolton to the UN post even though he wasn't recommended by the congressional committee the staements related to the appointment, we've heard Bush give his stongest endorsement of support for Karl Rove and then he had to make a comment supporting Rafael Palmero with regard to Raffy having testified to congress earlier that he never used steroids and yesterday he admitted that some how steriods accidentally were given to him. I don't understand why Bush had to even make a comment about Palmero let alone a comment saying he supported his story. I know on of Bush's earlier failures as a bussiness man was as a part owner of the Texas Rangers when Palmero came to them. I liked Palmero when he was with the Cubs but even then there were stories about his being a little hot headed. I'm glad the Cubs held on to Grace as long as they did. I hope the suspension doesn't hurt Palmero's job as a spokesman for Viagra.

And now I guess that Bush is ready to go down to the ranch for another "well earned" vacation again!

I can't imagine the Bush years as leaving a good legacy. In most cases time heals all wounds but in this case I think time will wound all heels

It should surpise no one that a proven liar like Bush has not a shred of credibility left and would resort to such a tactic.

Oh brother. Did you know that Clinton has done this more times than President Bush has?

Man, will I ever be glad in three more years when this idiot is only a bad memory. Just hope the country last three more years under his "leadership".

This country will last three years B.L. It lasted through the worse than this.

people, we are talking about bush..... not clinton

Guess that the kid was abused by Clinton in his childhood, he's paranoid.

people, we are talking about bush..... not clinton

True that however, people think that this is the first time that this has happened. Clinton just comes up as a prime example that this has happened before.

While I dislike Bolton I'll point out that Bush has used the Recess appoitment 110 times so far, Bill Clinton used it 140 times in 8 years, and Ronald Reagan had used it over 200. So yes he didn't wait for a vote he probably never would have gotten on a candidate that has some serious questions... but it's hardly a new thing in the American system. Doesn't mean you have to like Bolton, but pretending it's somthing new is disengenious.


Naginah

Guess that the kid was abused by Clinton in his childhood, he's paranoid.


Yeah...... besides clinton was a strong leader wether you liked him or not.

Independantly of my opinions concerning Bush, Bolton, Democrats and Republicans, this was the wrong thing to do in a nation that is trying to present itself as the defender of democracy.

If any other country had bypassed their democratic processes in this way, I am fairly sure that the US would be making media capital out of it.
I should point out that the US Government doesnt control the media, despite the ravings of some people.
The media controls the media, as you will observe if you watch any news station of your choice.

Keep in mind that the News is not MEANT as news, its meant as entertainment. Why show a story about how great the new Tax Reform Program (made up) is, when you can throw some dirt regarding some other countrys UN ambassador?

Of course, if you knew this, feel free to say so :P

While I dislike Bolton I'll point out that Bush has used the Recess appoitment 110 times so far, Bill Clinton used it 140 times in 8 years, and Ronald Reagan had used it over 200. So yes he didn't wait for a vote he probably never would have gotten on a candidate that has some serious questions... but it's hardly a new thing in the American system. Doesn't mean you have to like Bolton, but pretending it's somthing new is disengenious.


Naginah

Sshhhh! The facts just get in the way of their brainwashed minds. :D

uhhh, no. bush still has a few more years. plenty of time for him to do it again. :D

uhhh, no. bush still has a few more years. plenty of time for him to do it again. :D

I know :D isn't recess appointments great for those that are in the office to do them? :D

In the past day or so we've seen Bush appoint Bolton to the UN post even though he wasn't recommended by the congressional committee the staements related to the appointment, we've heard Bush give his stongest endorsement of support for Karl Rove and then he had to make a comment supporting Rafael Palmero with regard to Raffy having testified to congress earlier that he never used steroids and yesterday he admitted that some how steriods accidentally were given to him. I don't understand why Bush had to even make a comment about Palmero let alone a comment saying he supported his story. I know on of Bush's earlier failures as a bussiness man was as a part owner of the Texas Rangers when Palmero came to them. I liked Palmero when he was with the Cubs but even then there were stories about his being a little hot headed. I'm glad the Cubs held on to Grace as long as they did. I hope the suspension doesn't hurt Palmero's job as a spokesman for Viagra.

And now I guess that Bush is ready to go down to the ranch for another "well earned" vacation again!

I can't imagine the Bush years as leaving a good legacy. In most cases time heals all wounds but in this case I think time will wound all heels


please, not another vacation

I know :D isn't recess appointments great for those that are in the office to do them? :D



Not when they abuse it. Half the people don't want bolton. mabye he should find a better candidate :p He just wants his pal in power

Not when they abuse it. Half the people don't want bolton. mabye he should find a better candidate :p He just wants his pal in power

Meh, Bush is the elected president and his party is in control. Who the president appoints, the president should get. That is my motto. (and that goes for either party)

As other's have mentioned, let's get some perspective.

"Administration officials had signaled for weeks that Mr. Bush would name Mr. Bolton to the post with a recess appointment, a procedure that permits a president to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, as it is for the month of August. Mr. Bolton is by far the highest-ranking official Mr. Bush has named by recess appointment. Before Mr. Bolton, Mr. Bush had named 105 other officials by recess appointment, many of them judges."

This is an old, old, practice in America. An up or down vote vote would have been nice, but it wasn't possible. The Dem's to a degree caused this to happen, or could have prevented it by some back-room dealing, by their inflexibility regarding nominees in general.

Politics require compromise. Dem's have seen this coming for weeks, it's no surprise to anyone. It's absolutely correct for the Dem's to be the 'opposition' to what the Republicans propose, but it seems to occupy all their thinking these days - they seem to have a siege mentality. I see a formerly noble party without leadership and objectives. This appointment, in my mind, is an example of 'opposition at all cost'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd-bolton.html?hp&ex=1122955200&en=6014f62ea8a1344d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

but thats the whole point of the filibuster. If it wasnt for that then once a party takes control it would be years and years to get them out

response to cornilia( or whatever it is)

but thats the whole point of the filibuster. If it wasnt for that then once a party takes control it would be years and years to get them out

response to cornilia( or whatever it is)

But when a filibuster is overused (as the dems have done) it normally starts to piss people off and this is the result of said pissing off.

Not when they abuse it. Half the people don't want bolton. mabye he should find a better candidate :p He just wants his pal in power

(Emphasis added.)

Er... it's obviously less than half. If Bolton wasn't favored by a majority, they wouldn't be filibustering him in the first place.

You and others do realize this isn't the first time a recess appointment has been made. My pal Teddy Kennedy really pushed hard for recess appointments to avoid a defeat on the floor for Bill Lan Lee. Turns out Lee wasn't given a recess appointment, but rather an "acting" appointment. But that's another story.

I think a good case has been made that Congress stalled by requesting ridiculous types and amounts of documents. That seems to be their tactic lately and I don't know why the Republicans can't figure out that they're the majority party.

No, there isn't a good case to be made there. The Democrats wanted information about what sort of candidate for the job this guy was. Only a Republican would argue that basing a decision on facts is unreasonable. And it doesn't matter how few of them there are. Their job is to fight for Democratic values, that's what they're doing. Do Republicans all pack up and go home when they're in the minority? No, the bitch and pout and whine and lie. All the Democrats are doing is participating in the Democratic process. You know... their job.

But when a filibuster is overused (as the dems have done) it normally starts to piss people off and this is the result of said pissing off.

*Checks copy of the Republican Dictionary*

Overuse - noun, Appropriate use of procedures or assets by opposing parties to the frustration of Republicans.
Abuse - noun, Use to pleasant effect.

The Dem's hoped to prevent the appointment of Bolton, and they could not survive an up and down vote. They had no choice but filibuster, something they've done excessively.

My theory is that they were aware they would be castigated by the public for excessive filibustering (the "party of the stoplight"). They 'permitted' Bush use a recess appointment (which is not well understood by the public) and would have negative political connotations. In other words, let Bush take the heat, rather than them, for an appointment they probably couldn't have stopped anyway.

BTW,

_President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1961, getting around opposition from Southern senators. Their resistance had weakened by the following September, and the Senate approved him 54-16.

_President Dwight Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953) and Associate Justices William Brennan (1956) and Potter Stewart (1958). Each later received Senate confirmation.

_President George Washington appointed John Rutledge of South Carolina as chief justice during a 1795 recess. The Senate rejected the nomination and his appointment expired after he served one term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080100476_pf.html

While I dislike Bolton I'll point out that Bush has used the Recess appoitment 110 times so far, Bill Clinton used it 140 times in 8 years, and Ronald Reagan had used it over 200. So yes he didn't wait for a vote he probably never would have gotten on a candidate that has some serious questions... but it's hardly a new thing in the American system. Doesn't mean you have to like Bolton, but pretending it's somthing new is disengenious.


Naginah

I'm not certain that the idea being prompted is that it's new, but rather that it's wrong. It never got much coverage before, so no one cared, but I don't think anyone has ever used it to nominate such horrible candidates. He favors judges who think that abortion deserves the death penalty and a UN ambassador who thinks the UN doesn't exist.

OK, other presidents got away with it. I think that now that people are paying attention to the abuse, because Bush's have been so flagrant, it's the right time to do something about it.

Your saying that the UN Ambasssadorialship isn't a position that must be filled pronto? Oh brother! :rolleyes:

If it had to be filled pronto then Bush would have picked another candidate when Bill Frist said "as far as I know, it's a dead nomination." Once it was clear that a legitimate appointment was not going to be forthcoming, months ago, he'd have said "well, I need someone there, so I guess I'll have to move down the list."

This is revisionist history! Who wouldn't give him an up or down vote again? Oh yea! The DEMOCRATS! :rolleyes:

No, it's not revisionist history. The Democrats kept asking for documents that they could use to make a decision about it, but the administration wouldn't turn them over. What were they supposed to base their decision on, a Oijia board? Bush stalled by not giving them the information and waiting out the clock.


Clinton used the recess appointments quite effectively. Do you approve of him doing that?

I only approve of recess appointments in actual emergencies, no matter who the president. A manufactured emergency is, by definition, not an emergency.

And I'd look into those rolling eyes of yours. That and your diminished reasoning skills lead me to believe you may be punch drunk.

And I'd look into those rolling eyes of yours. That and your diminished reasoning skills lead me to believe you may be punch drunk.
It's a habit of his that I find quite arrogant.

You and others do realize this isn't the first time a recess appointment has been made. My pal Teddy Kennedy really pushed hard for recess appointments to avoid a defeat on the floor for Bill Lan Lee. Turns out Lee wasn't given a recess appointment, but rather an "acting" appointment. But that's another story.

I don't see what I said that indicates I don't realize it's been done before. Lots of things I disaprove of have been done before. The argument being presented here isn't that it's novel, just that it's wrong.


I think a good case has been made that Congress stalled by requesting ridiculous types and amounts of documents. That seems to be their tactic lately and I don't know why the Republicans can't figure out that they're the majority party.

The case has'nt been made, only asserted. If it really was intended to delay then the administration would have handed them over and demanded that a vote be made once all the information was given. Asking for some evidence of the man's credentials and history is not ridiculous. How much information is requested when you apply for a job? When that job involves the saftey of the world do you want the interview to be truncated to a rubber stamping ceremony?

It's a habit of his that I find quite arrogant.

It certainly explains his affinity for the Bush administration.

What a nonsense. It was his constitutional right that allowed him to do this. It's not very nice of him, but it's not illegal or "un-democratic".

It all depends on whose ox is being gored. When Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court the Republicans thought it was "wrong" and screamed bloody murder.

Now the Democrats and liberals cry "wrong" about Bolton and Bush. It's "wrong" because they don't like the appointee. Sour grapes.

This is constitutionally valid, you can't get more legal than that. It was the intent of the framers of the document to give the President the authority.

Question the political judgement of the President, question his intent, and take it to the polls - but it's not "wrong".

Hey, President Bush could be appointing John Roberts during recess, now there'd be something to complain about.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored. When Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court the Republicans thought it was "wrong" and screamed bloody murder.

Now the Democrats and liberals cry "wrong" about Bolton and Bush. It's "wrong" because they don't like the appointee. Sour grapes.

This is constitutionally valid, you can't get more legal than that. It was the intent of the framers of the document to give the President the authority. Question the political judgement of the President, question his intent, and take it to the polls - but it's not "wrong".

But it was their intention that it be a fallback plan for when an emergency appointment was needed and Congress had already adjourned. For quite some time recess appointments weren't even allowed. It had to be during adjornment.



It seems fairly clear that he's abusing the law. Lots of court cases end in aquittal because the police used a law that was intended for one purpose, but ended up being used by the police for another purpose. Precident in law is clear, intentions matter. The authority he was given was not intended as a "beat the clock" power. It was intended as a "dammit, why is Congress never around when you need them," power.


Hey, President Bush could be appointing John Roberts during recess, now there'd be something to complain about.

Not especially. The big deal about Supreme court nominees is that they're there for life (or as much of it as they would like). Recess appointments are only for about a year and a half. Bolton could do a lot of damage in a year and a half, Roberts would not be likely to get an abortion case, desegregation case, or an eminent domain case in a year and a half, and then he'd be out, with relativly little harm done.

But it was their intention that it be a fallback plan for when an emergency appointment was needed and Congress had already adjourned. For quite some time recess appointments weren't even allowed. It had to be during adjornment.

It seems fairly clear that he's abusing the law. Lots of court cases end in aquittal because the police used a law that was intended for one purpose, but ended up being used by the police for another purpose. Precident in law is clear, intentions matter. The authority he was given was not intended as a "beat the clock" power. It was intended as a "dammit, why is Congress never around when you need them," power.

Not especially. The big deal about Supreme court nominees is that they're there for life (or as much of it as they would like). Recess appointments are only for about a year and a half. Bolton could do a lot of damage in a year and a half, Roberts would not be likely to get an abortion case, desegregation case, or an eminent domain case in a year and a half, and then he'd be out, with relativly little harm done.

I understand your position, and as I said earlier a recess appointment is less than desireable to me, even though I have no problem with Bolton ot sending him to light a fire at the UN. It doesn't appeal to my sense of fair play.

Nonetheless, it is clearly Constitutional and has been a common practice since Washington. We cannot say what the framers intended, but it is plain as day that they anticipated this sort of thing and used simple language to permit it.

It is unreasonable, though, to cry foul when the "wrong" man is appointed and to turn one's head when the appointee is more suitable. It averages out over time - far more important positions than this have been filled in this manner and the country has survived.

It matters little how much 'harm' Roberts could do. The point is that Bush could appoint him but won't. It diminishes the position that Bush is circumventing the law at every opportunity.

I believe that the framers of the Constitution assumed that the check on an abuse of recess appointments is the voter. They will punish the abuser if he appears to take unneccesary advantage.

Btw, trivia: did you know that Teddy Roosevelt made a significant appointment within 1 day of recess? The average time is about 10 days. The voters in deciding the 'fairness' of the appointments tend to factor in the amount of time before the act.

Guys and Gals, what this all comes down to is the fact that the liberal Democrats just can't figure out why they aren't in power any longer. Because of that they are frustrated and will do anything they think will cause the current administration embarrassment or difficulty, then complain that the administration is ineffective.

All the recent "crises" are just manufactured by a few liberal Democrats, abetted by a willing press. Instead of focusing on Bush's real shortcomings, such as immigration and spending, to name a few, they have decided that Iraq, Bolton, Roberts, and Valerie Plame are more important or more newsworthy. Let's just sit back and let them burn themselves out.

Then, maybe, the liberal wing can be replaced on the national scene by moderates like Lieberman. Only then can the Democratic party start to participate in the governing process that they have ignored since 2000.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored. When Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court the Republicans thought it was "wrong" and screamed bloody murder.

Now the Democrats and liberals cry "wrong" about Bolton and Bush. It's "wrong" because they don't like the appointee. Sour grapes.

This is constitutionally valid, you can't get more legal than that. It was the intent of the framers of the document to give the President the authority.

Question the political judgement of the President, question his intent, and take it to the polls - but it's not "wrong".

Hey, President Bush could be appointing John Roberts during recess, now there'd be something to complain about.

Agreed in every respect.

If it had to be filled pronto then Bush would have picked another candidate when Bill Frist said "as far as I know, it's a dead nomination." Once it was clear that a legitimate appointment was not going to be forthcoming, months ago, he'd have said "well, I need someone there, so I guess I'll have to move down the list."

Oh brother. I don't know where to begin to hammer this. It became a dead nomination when the filibuster took place. I'm waiting for when the Republican Party declare an all out filibuster and bring in the cots till the issue is decided. That'll be fun to watch.

No, it's not revisionist history.

Yes it is!

The Democrats kept asking for documents that they could use to make a decision about it, but the administration wouldn't turn them over.

And they don't have to turn over those documents. It is their right not too. If there were any questions, they should've been brought up in committee when he was being interviewed for the job. If they didn't bring it up then then I guess it wasn't that important after all. That is what a committee hearing is for after all. Once they are voted out of committee, they deserve an up or down vote. Something the Democrats apparently keep forgetting.

What were they supposed to base their decision on, a Oijia board? Bush stalled by not giving them the information and waiting out the clock.

Its his right not too. Again, that is what committee hearings are for. Is there something about committees your not understanding?

I only approve of recess appointments in actual emergencies, no matter who the president. A manufactured emergency is, by definition, not an emergency.

LOL! The Senate Democrats are holding up the nomination to perhaps one of the most important positions. I'm sorry but that post needed to be filled and thanks to the Democrats filibustering, he is now at the UN thanks to his recess appointment.

And I'd look into those rolling eyes of yours. That and your diminished reasoning skills lead me to believe you may be punch drunk.

As opposed to your lack of history or lack of intelligence?

OK...first of all, the United States is NOT a Democracy. It's a Republic. Therefore, one does not need the popular vote to win an election - merely the support of the electoral college (which is supposed to mimic the popular vote, but is not required to).

Secondly, one could argue that Clinton left many of the problems that face the world today. His response to terrorist attacks against the U.S. military was extremely lacking and a key proponent in Al Queda's decision to target the U.S. on 9/11. But...Clinton's a GOD compared to Bush, right?

When the Dems decided to filibuster the nomination of Bolton, they decided to let Bush appoint Bolton during recess - and dont for a minute think they didnt know this was coming. Whether right or wrong, it's not only legal, but is what the Dems wanted Bush to do for the specific reason that it would stir up all the bleeding heart liberals to make wild accusations about Bush sidestepping democracy.

Bush has no more side-stepped democracy than Clinton, or any other President for that matter, did during their term.

Bolton's appointment is temporal. It lapses after the next session.

He won't do any real damage; except to US foreign policy (which is already in virtual tatters anyway.... When you're at rock bottom, there is only two directions to go, back up; or sideways....)

Today, President George W. Bush bypassed the senate to install
John Bolton as the new US ambassodor to the UN.
He blatantly did this because the majority of the senate, including
some republicans had taken a firm stance that Bolton was entirely
the wrong person for the position.

This is rather frightening, it raises questions about what Bush may
do next.

I do not have much of an idea of what Bolton stands for, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the proud democratic process that is a tenant of
the american system has been violated.

Alright, now people from both sides, tell me what you think.
Tell me your opinion on whether or not this was the right thing
for our president to do.

newsflash: other recent presidents have done the same thing, including clinton

where was your flaming then?

where was your flaming then?

There was none, but people like to pretend that George W. is the most evil man alive and will use any news report and spin it so that he is.

OMG BUSH USES CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BUT THATS AGAINST DEMOCRACY!!!!11111one!

I don't see this as a "side step around democracy" whatsoever. The president has a Constitutional right to do what he did. The Senate won't even give this guy a vote! If he is such a bad choice, why not just vote him down? That would make too much sense wouldn't it? Not having an ambassador to the UN, during a time of war, doesn't make just as much sense.

Do you feel Bolton is wrong for the job, why? Because he feels the UN is an institution that needs reforms, because he is bossy and might hurt someone's feelings, or he doesn't dress appropriatly for such a position? Perhaps we should send someone who is appologetic, agrees that the UN has no flaws, that the US is wrong in whatever position it might hold, or someone who wants to hold hands and make everyone happy?

You've stated that you don't know what Bolton stands for? How can you then make the claim that he is wrong for the job? Oh, it's not the point. I disagree. If our elected officials in the Senate can't do there jobs, which is to uphold their Constitutional obligation of "Advice and Consent" for such positions, is a far more frightening concept than "what Bush might do next". You claim Bush is violating democracy? These "senators" who don't fulfill their Constitutional obligations, who would rather see America not represented at all at the UN than to just vote on the guy, or stall that very democratic process of voting because of petty partisan politics (not just a "debate") are far greater a threat than Bush (who is an oil-war mongering-terrorist-god bothering-homophopic-anti democratic-Big Brother-pro Patriot Act-corporate loving-anti environment-anti choice-anti anti-narrowminded-lying-deceptive-cowardly-over weight-anti happiness-anti prosperity-je ne ce qois kind of man, and an all around nice guy, right? Please note the cynacism!!!).

So, now that that is out of my system. Bush is right; the Senate is wrong.

Stupid-head!

There was none, but people like to pretend that George W. is the most evil man alive and will use any news report and spin it so that he is.

OMG BUSH USES CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BUT THATS AGAINST DEMOCRACY!!!!11111one!

Democracy in action: Bush was elected by the American people.

He is privy to the rights of the US presidency.

Bolton is sort of funny to me: sort of reminds me of a bowling ball, with the UN the pins. The guy looks like he's pissed off!

I don't see this as a "side step around democracy" whatsoever. The president has a Constitutional right to do what he did. The Senate won't even give this guy a vote! If he is such a bad choice, why not just vote him down? That would make too much sense wouldn't it? Not having an ambassador to the UN, during a time of war, doesn't make just as much sense.

Do you feel Bolton is wrong for the job, why? Because he feels the UN is an institution needed of reforms, because he is bossy and might hurt someone's feelings, or he doesn't dress appropriatly for such a position? Perhaps we should send someone who the UN who is appologetic, agrees that the UN has no flaws, that the US is wrong in whatever position it might hold, or someone who wants to hold hands and make everyone happy?

You've stated that you don't know what Bolton stands for? How can you then make the claim that he is wrong for the job? Oh, it's not the point? I disagree. If our elected officials in the Senate can't do there jobs, which is to uphold their Constitutional obligation of Advice and Consent for such positions, is a far more frightening concept than "what Bush might do next". You claim Bush is violating democracy? These "senators" who don't fulfill their Constitutional obligations, who would rather see America not represented at all at the UN than to just vote on the guy, or stall that very democratic process of voting because of petty partisan politics (not just a "debate") are far greater a threat than Bush (who is an oil-war mongering-terrorist-god bothering-homophopic-anti democratic-Big Brother-pro Patriot Act-corporate loving-anti environment-anti choice-anti anti-narrowminded-lying-deceptive-cowardly-over weight-anti happiness-anti prosperity-je ne ce qois kind of man, and an all around nice guy - please note the cynacism!!!).

So, now that that is out of my system. Bush is right; the Senate is wrong.

Stupid-head!

The UN is definitely in need of reform, at least a reform of mentality. They were late in Kosovo, they weren't going to do anything about Saddam, they're doing nothing about Africa but throwing money at it (which most of us in here understand is not the way to get things done in Africa).

The UN has so much power, but does not effectively use it. When you have teeth but don't use them, you are not doing as good a job as you could be doing. Maybe Bolton will light a needed fire under the UN's arse.

Maybe if the Bush-haters on this board had, oh, I don't know, ever passed a high school civics class, they'd know that a recess appointment is granted to the president in the constitution, and that every president in modern history has used it. But obviously, Bush must be attacking democracy because he used it, and Bush is a Nazi. Obviously.

Shhhh. Don't hit them with the truth! They can't handle it :D

Maybe if the Bush-haters on this board had, oh, I don't know, ever passed a high school civics class, they'd know that a recess appointment is granted to the president in the constitution, and that every president in modern history has used it. But obviously, Bush must be attacking democracy because he used it, and Bush is a Nazi. Obviously.

Maybe, instead, the headline should be "Congressional Democrats Sidestep Democracy," because that's what they've been doing since 2000. See, in a democracy, officials are elected by the people to represent and act in their government. These officials are elected by a majority. That means that when you lose, like the Democrats did in the presidential races of 2000 and 2004 and the congressional races of 2004 when they lost even more seats, you do not represent the majority. You do not get to set policy. You do not get to determine the fate of presidential nominations. You do not get to do these things because the majority of American citizens did not pick you to do so. They picked other people. However, that's exactly what Democrats have been doing; trying to run the government counter to the wishes of the American public.

But that's not important, right? Who needs democracy? We're obviously all too stupid to choose the right people to run our government, so thank God there are liberals everywhere who are ready to step up and spit on our constitution and our system of government for the last 200+ years. :headbang:

But that's not important, right? Who needs democracy? We're obviously all too stupid to choose the right people to run our government, so thank God there are liberals everywhere who are ready to step up and spit on our constitution and our system of government for the last 200+ years.

It's not that they have a problem with choosing people for government, they just don't like the fact that they aren't being picked. They're SOOOO much smarter than we are so it bothers them that we can't get in line. Their ideas are nice, IN THEORY. But they don't work. They think logic and reason solves all problems...if that was true, nerds would be gettin' all the chicks.

Democracy in action: Bush was elected by the American people.

He is privy to the rights of the US presidency.

Bolton is sort of funny to me: sort of reminds me of a bowling ball, with the UN the pins. The guy looks like he's pissed off!

My favorite comment ever on the whole Bolton thing was in The Onion, where someone said that "appointing Bolton to be UN Ambassador is like appointing a fish to ride a bicycle that he hates and wishes to destroy."

Today, President George W. Bush bypassed the senate to install
John Bolton as the new US ambassodor to the UN.
He blatantly did this because the majority of the senate, including
some republicans had taken a firm stance that Bolton was entirely
the wrong person for the position.

*cough*Dem agitprop bullshit*cough*

Actually, a minority of Dems never allowed it to come to an up and down vote because if they had there would have been a good chance that the Bolton nomination would have succeeded. Instead they performed an unofficial filibuster while the matter was still in commitee with the help of George "Crocodile tears" Voinovich.

The Democrats should have been given the documents. They weren't. Although I don't like it, let's see what Bolton does. If he fucks up, well we can't get much worse. Of course, the chances of the UN participating in anything he proposes are slim to none, seeing as how there's so much controversy over his appointment in his own country.

Now, I ask everyone, please stop with the "he was within his constitutional rights" and "it had been done before." That's not the topic of discussion. We get that. You've said it enough. We're talking about this case, and we're talking about whether or not it was right. Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean it's right.

The balance of power in the government has gone far too far to the right. We need reforms. We need to reform our legislative branch so that we have equal representatives from both major parties and an equal number of minor parties from each state. It would be like this: 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 3 others.

Now, I ask everyone, please stop with the "he was within his constitutional rights" and "it had been done before." That's not the topic of discussion. We get that. You've said it enough. We're talking about this case, and we're talking about whether or not it was right. Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean it's right.

Actually, no. The topic of discussion, if we're to take the original post as an indication, is whether George W. Bush's use of the recess appointment circumvented the democratic process.

It matters little how much 'harm' Roberts could do. The point is that Bush could appoint him but won't. It diminishes the position that Bush is circumventing the law at every opportunity.

Not really. The reason that SC appointments are contentious at all is that they're for life. Appointing him during a recess would be pointless, because he'd be out in a year and a half. A job like ambassador to the UN is fairly short term by comparison. A recess appointment is almost as good as a genuine appointment, except being vastly inferior, if you get my drift. Even if Bolton was voted in, he'd probably be removed as soon as Bush came out of office. Certainly if a Dem got in, but perhaps even if a moderate Republican got in.

The Democrats should have been given the documents. They weren't. Although I don't like it, let's see what Bolton does. If he fucks up, well we can't get much worse. Of course, the chances of the UN participating in anything he proposes are slim to none, seeing as how there's so much controversy over his appointment in his own country.

Now, I ask everyone, please stop with the "he was within his constitutional rights" and "it had been done before." That's not the topic of discussion. We get that. You've said it enough. We're talking about this case, and we're talking about whether or not it was right. Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean it's right.

The balance of power in the government has gone far too far to the right. We need reforms. We need to reform our legislative branch so that we have equal representatives from both major parties and an equal number of minor parties from each state. It would be like this: 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 3 others.


Exactly. Although the topic is "bush side stpped democracy" and we know other presidents have done this and it is allowed, the topic has changed.