You Go, Harry!

by hilzoy

Via dKos, Robert Novak (yech!):

"Sen. Harry Reid, leading the Senate's new Democratic majority, is framing next year's schedule in a way that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to give recess appointments to nominees blocked for confirmation.

Reid's schedule limits Senate recesses to one week. Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days. That may kill any consideration of trying to seat federal appeals court judges whose nominations had been stalled even in the Republican-controlled Senate. The downside may be a rebellion by senators if their breaks are held to one week."

This is wonderful. There is no reason to allow recess appointments now that Senators don't have to return to Washington by horseback. The President should have to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate on all the appointments for which it is normally required. And yes, I will say that when a Democrat is next in office.

It's also wonderful to learn that Senators will actually be expected to be, gasp, working much of the time. And no, I don't count fundraising as "working".

Comments

[CaseyL]

Cutting short the recess is a good idea anyway, esp. since the GOP losers decided to act like spoiled beauty pageant contestants and leave so much work unfinished.

I'm not so sure calling the Senate back that soon will actually prevent recess appointments, though:

" Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days."

"Usually" being the operative word, here. Bush disdained Congress when his own Party was in charge. If he wants to make recess appointments, he'll make them - regardless of whether he has that 10-day window.

Bush has accepted Bolton's resignation. If he still wants to recess-appoint our UN Ambassador, it'll be someone Not Bolton. I'm curious about who he will name - someone as bad or worse, probably.

[OCSteve]

The President should have to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate on all the appointments for which it is normally required.

No argument there. But advice and consent should consist of a full vote by the Senate. Prevention of such a vote by a handful of Senators does not constitute advice and consent. Senate rules and procedures should not have precedence over the constitution. This case (Bolton) represents blocking advice and consent. I’ll say the same thing with a Democrat as president.

[Nell]

This case (Bolton) represents blocking advice and consent.

No, it does not. If Lincoln Chafee had an ounce of real political guts, he would have voted against Bolton the first time through and the nomination would have died in committee as it should have.

As it was, a 9-9 vote, where the nomination is sent to the full Senate with no recommendation, is normally death to confirmation. Only an administration determined to disregard the advise and consent function would have appointed him under those circumstances.

I'm delighted to hear about the Democratic Senate schedule, regardless of whether it keeps the current regime from making recess appointments or not.

[Ugh]

OCSteve- Article I, Section 5, clause 2 provides in part that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Why isn't demanding an up or down vote in the full Senate in violation of the Senate's rules "precedence over the constitution"? Further, the appointments clause merely says in pertinent part "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court". It doesn't provide how the Senate is to give its advice and consent. Wouldn't you look to the Senate's rules to determine that?

[Ugh]

ooops, for some reason I got judges in my head, but the same rule holds for nominations like Bolton's.

And I second CaseyL's comment, the Constitution merely says "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." There's no provision for a 10 day period.

[Slartibartfast]

I was thinking the same thing, Ugh: that unless there's a rule about 10-day recesses, Bush can and probably will make recess appointments.

[john miller]

OCSteve, I do assume you told everyone how disgusted you were with the Republicans who were denying up or down votes on the majority of Clinton's judicial nominees.

As pointed out above, no where does it say in the Constitution anything about up or down votes.

[OCSteve]

OCSteve, I do assume you told everyone how disgusted you were with the Republicans who were denying up or down votes on the majority of Clinton's judicial nominees.

As I said above, I would say the same if the prez was a Dem.

"Advice and Consent of the Senate" to me means the entire Senate as a deliberative body - a vote.

Not a portion of the Senate blocking cloture. If they knew he would not be confirmed they would not have filibustered. The only reason they filibustered is because he would have had the votes. That is not how it should work. Any person who subjects themselves to the circus of a conformation hearing deserves an up or down vote.

[bril]

You Go, Harry! We will turn our heads the other way and ignore your corruption.

[John Thullen]

"... now that Senators don't have to return to Washington by horseback."

I'd lend my Democratic Senator my pony.....

.... and commission horsethievery against Brownback, Lott,, et al.

[Morat20]

"Not how it should work" isn't an arguement, Steve.

The Constitutional language is clear here. The Senate is fully within their Constitutional rights and duties to set up the nomination and voting procedure the way they have.

If you don't like it, feel free to lobby to have it changed. If you're going to claim -- as you seem to be -- that it's unconstitutional please make a [i]Constitutional argument[/i]. One a bit stronger than "Not how it should be".

Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify HOW the Senate shall vote to give "Advice and consent". The Constitution does specify a few such things (like the 2/3rds majority for Amendments), but the rest falls under the clause allowing the Senate to set up it's own rules.

We all grasp that you think it shouldn't be that way. I don't think Bush should be President, but that doesn't mean he isn't. He was duly and Constitutionally elected, barring some discovery of fraud.

[dmbeaster]

OCSteve:

Bolton was filibustered the first time around solely because the Bush administration refused to release pertinent records, and the filibuster was supported by some Republicans as well because they agreed with the records request. The Democrats indicated they would not continue the filibuster if the records were released. Even that right wing rag the Washington Times reported it that way.

Bolton was denied a vote the first time around because Bush chose to recess appoint instead of comply with the advice and consent procedure by releasing records and allowing a vote based on that information. So, just who was acting to block advice and consent?

The whole nonsense about Bolton being denied an up-or-down vote is zombie nonsense that will not die its deserved death.

This time around, he did not have the votes even in the lame duck session with a 55 seat Republican majority.
________

I don't think Novak's speculation as to the reason for the Senate schedule has anything to do with recess appointments, particularly since it won't prevent them anyway by shortening the down time. It almost certainly has to do with the desire to address a ton of business.

I would read the Novak column as a window into Bush administration thinking -- can we politically still get away with recess appointments with the Senate in session most of the time?

[Nell]

Last pile-on: OCSteve, the Bolton defeat did not in any way involve a filibuster. Go back and review the history. It's just about the only example of Republicans exercising their function to check administration excesses in the last six years.

[Nell]

Okay, I withdraw my last comment, pending research. My memory was that the committee reported the nomination out with no recommendation and that Frist thought there might not be the votes to withstand a filibuster so that the admin made the recess appointment.

[OCSteve]

Thanks Nell – I was just about to launch into a response when I scrolled down and saw your last. I was pretty sure I recalled Reid admitting it was the first filibuster of the year (05) when I saw that.

dmbeaster: Demanding classified records is a good excuse. If the records were that big a deal, then every Senator who felt that way could have voted NO. Easy enough.

[OCSteve]

BTW - I’d like to see detailed and legitimate reasons why he was such a bad a nominee - something beyond a bad haircut or being too blunt.

Blunt is just what is called for IMO. The money scandals, the continual sexual abuse of woman and children refugees by “peacekeepers” (right to today), the total lack of “peacekeepers” to raise a finger to actually keep the peace, the blatant anti-Israel and anti-Americanism, the total lack of accountability for any damned thing. Take 10 floors off? Hell – take 20.

Blunt? I’d vote for Clint Eastwood (liberal) in his character of either Dirty Harry or Josey Wales. Leaning towards Wales.

I’m with Bolton in that I would like to see the UN reformed to the point where it is actually an effective world body. Sending another…. Ah, never mind.

In my mind he accomplished quite a lot given the corrupt and useless organization he had to deal with.

[bril]

Ah... the corruption sets in early... I guess when you have corrupt leaders it just flows down. I'm sure Hilzoy will get around to dealing with corrupt legislators say when... the Republicans get back in power.

Vrtual Fence = Virtual Corruption? Speaker Pelosi's fallback choice to head the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, voted against building the 700 mile border fence. He prefers a system of video surveillance cameras, apparently. And gee, it seems that his daughter works for a firm that won a government contract to provide such surveillance services! What's more, according to WaPo's John Mintz (who broke the story) the firm did a really bad job.

[Ugh]

gotta link for that bril?

[Jesurgislac]

I’d like to see detailed and legitimate reasons why he was such a bad a nominee

It was discussed on Obsidian Wings fairly extensively last year (not that I'm not in favor of starting a new discussion on the topic of Why Bolton Was Bad, I'm just saying if you're looking for detailed and legitimate reasons, here you go (and an earlier post with discussion here).

[KCinDC]

OCSteve, what reason do you have to believe that Bolton has any interest in having the UN be "an effective world body"? As far as I'm can tell, this administration prefers the UN to be as ineffective as possible -- at least as long as there's any possibility that it might disagree with the US.

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: I wrote a bunch of Bolton posts back in the day. The main one is here, and it contains my basic reasons for not thinking he'd be good at the job, but this one and this one contain further reasons that I think are also pretty important.

[Pooh]

Not to pile on, but, while piling on, let me suggest that OCSteve has constructed a wee man of straw here:

Prevention of such a vote by a handful of Senators does not constitute advice and consent.

40 counts as a handful does it? You can argue that filibustering is a bad thing, (I disagree, but it's a subject on which reasonable minds can differ) but argue it straight up please.

[Slartibartfast Daffodil-11 Swain]

gotta link for that bril?

Actually, I linked to this just a couple of days ago.

Here you are. Not sure it's the smoking gun that bril apparently thinks it is, but it does smell...well...good thing we didn't step in it.

[Slartibartfast]

If you're distrustful of Mr. Maguire, or simply are looking for different sources, go to TMPmuckraker.

[OCSteve]

An ambassador who is a tactless boor may not win us any friends, but an ambassador who seriously misstates our policies to further his own agenda can do much more serious damage.

Those are good posts Hilzoy. I read them at the time but I had not really waded into the fray. I’m not clear on what you thought “his own agenda” was, vs. his opinion of how to carry out the policy he was tasked to support.

I will admit the man’s negatives, but I still think he is the type of hard-driving (faults implicit) individual who was needed to attempt to confront the rampant corruption we have seen there in recent years. Someone who accepts the status quo, who never challenges things or shakes things up, is going to get the status quo.

KCinDC: what reason do you have to believe that Bolton has any interest in having the UN be "an effective world body"?

He has worked hard to get some multilateral consensus on NK, Iran, Darfur…, as ineffective as that is. We have 2 UNSC seats who pretty much directly oppose our interests. The others are not exactly in line with what we want. But he got some things done.

Anybody, tell me: What will sending a typical diplomat to the UN get us? Reform? Hardly, just more wink wink nod nod. While we pay 20% of the tab they will go on exploiting refugees, refusing to make any real decisions or commitments, and pocket a lot of the money along the way. Bolton at least challenged some of that.

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: I'm not sure what qualities you think a typical diplomat would have, but if you're wondering what good it would do to send a mediocre conflict-averse endless-talk person, I can't think of a good answer.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why we need to choose between that and someone with all the tact of a rabid rottweiler who does foreign policy freelancing and neglects really important stuff. (Personally, I thought that the two most important points I made in those posts were: (a) this is a guy whose job it was to deal with the Nunn/Lugar attempts to secure Russian loose nukes, and totally failed, after 9/11, which imho calls his competence into question, and (b) this is a guy who sacrificed the chance to amend the NPT for his own ambitions. -- I mean: the NPT? The incredibly important, and crumbling before our eyes NPT???

Sheesh.

I'd rather have someone who deploys toughness when necessary, is utterly charming the rest of the time, and is (more importantly) very smart, very attuned to our interests, very willing to present our own policy accurately, very good at figuring out what we need to do to get the kinds of reforms we want, and very good at actually doing it.

I would expect such a person not to have a Bolton-like reputation. Like I said, willing to be tough, but only when necessary; not just for the hell of it.

[OCSteve]

40 counts as a handful does it? You can argue that filibustering is a bad thing, (I disagree, but it's a subject on which reasonable minds can differ) but argue it straight up please.

I guess I meant the handful that can influence others and seem to be mostly in control. When it comes down to it, I think there are only about a half dozen personalities ultimately involved in an outcome like this.

Anyway – Hi Pooh! Assuming you are the same Pooh of Balloon Juice fame  I believe you are because I recognize the pointed yet eminently reasonable style. I’m hanging out here these days. And these folks are a bad influence on me. It’s hard to hold on to my preconceptions and stereotypes of liberals with so many reasonable folks about.

[OCSteve]

Hilzoy: You are entirely too reasonable to argue with. Stop that. :) Sheesh.

Let me rephrase. What person can you see being on the short list who has at least a chance in hell of shaking up the UN and if not reforming it, at least eliminating some of its worst abuses and uselessness, and hopefully making it a legitimate body to help the world at large?

I still vote for the Outlaw Jose Wales.

[Pooh]

OCS,

Yes, tis I.

The thing is, your stereotypes of "liberals" are hard to apply because so many different kinds of people look like liberals today, and all look sorta the same. ("BOOOOSH!") This might change in the New Year when "our guys" (and gals, go Nancy...) actually get to do more than yell "STOP!" I look forward to those times, though it's somewhat bittersweet as I know I lack the chops to add much of substance to any policy debate. Anyway, my point is that when we get down to discussing brass tacks you'll find that the "liberals" are a much more varied group than you imagined.

[Ugh]

If you're distrustful of Mr. Maguire, or simply are looking for different sources, go to TMPmuckraker.

Thanks for the links Slarti. As for Mr. Maguire, I have no idea what he's talking about half the time.

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: I will admit the man’s negatives, but I still think he is the type of hard-driving (faults implicit) individual who was needed to attempt to confront the rampant corruption we have seen there in recent years.

No, not really. A hard-driving individual who was ready to confront corruption in the UN would be good - but that would need to be someone who was ready to confront all corruption, including that which implicates the US. Bolton showed no interest in being that person, and frankly, Bush would never have nominated him if he'd thought he was.

Let me rephrase. What person can you see being on the short list who has at least a chance in hell of shaking up the UN and if not reforming it, at least eliminating some of its worst abuses and uselessness, and hopefully making it a legitimate body to help the world at large?

I'm not Hilzoy, but I'd suggest Jimmy Carter would be grand. The only thing against him is he's 83, and so may not be in the robust health that I think an ambassador would need to have. Joseph Wilson would be good - he's got no loyalty to the Bush administration that would lead him to cover up or cover for the US corruption in the UN, he's proved he's got the chops to stand up for what he believes in, and he has years of experience as an ambassador.

[Ugh]

Jimmy Carter would be grand.

My God, the explosion of outrage and disbelief from right-wing blogistan would be unprecedented. Bizarro World once had some editors list the "worst americans ever" and Jimmy Carter topped more than one list.

[bril]

Will the corruption not stop?

"Representative Alan Mollohan, a West Virginia Democrat whose finances are being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is in line to take over the House panel that sets the bureau's budget."

Can we safely say that Hilzoy is Pro-Democratic corruption?

Maybe we can start a pool on how many posts Hilzoy would have made by now if these had been Republicans.

I'm betting atleast 4.

[Slartibartfast]

Bril, these are things that we've already discussed to one extent or other. Are we to conclude that bril simply can't bother itself to do more than come by and drop the occasional insulting comment?

Furthermore, lots of people here regularly visit TMPmuckraker, which has been doing very good work unearthing this sort of thing.

[hilzoy]

bril: I very much regret that Mollohan (a) is a member of my party, (b) won reelection, (c) is in line for any chair-like position, let alone that one.

For the moment, I am concentrating instead on LA-02, where I think we can make more of a difference.

Thanks for asking ;)

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: Richard Holbrooke leaps to mind, though I'd rather that in any Democratic administration, he be in the cabinet. But he's the sort I think would be good: committed to the idea of the UN (meaning: to what it can do, and to its becoming the organization it should be -- best I can tell, Bolton is not), perfectly willing to be tough when needed but not when not, and way, way smart. Also, as best I can tell he has a lot of respect abroad, which you might or might not take as a useful indicator of anything, but is in any case a useful asset.

[Jesurgislac]

Ugh: My God, the explosion of outrage and disbelief from right-wing blogistan would be unprecedented.

Yeah. *giggles rather meanly* I think he would be grand - but I remember the fury from the Right when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

He would be good as US Ambassador to the UN, though: he's exactly the well-respected elder statesman the US needs to clean up its image. If he were even ten years younger...

[KCinDC]

Bill Clinton is the obvious choice. Maybe Poppy Bush will recommend him.

[KCinDC]

Another worry about Reyes. Of course, my biggest worry about inappropriate committee heads is Lieberman, who's going to be positioned to impede investigation of anything related to the administration and the war he supports.

[Slartibartfast]

My God, the explosion of outrage and disbelief from right-wing blogistan would be unprecedented.

A gift, just because I care.

[Ugh]

Can someone please explain to me the reason why Jimmy Carter is, in the eyes of many on the right, one step up from Satan?

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think he could possibly be less than two steps up from Satan, myself.

[hilzoy]

Ugh: just a guess: he incarnated weakness by locking himself in the Rose Garden while our people were held terrorist. He was a wuss for trying to deal with the oil embargo by wearing sweaters. He hates Israel/Jews (despite having negotiated Camp David, which somehow doesn't count.) The economy sagged. Now that he's out of office, he wanders around trying to do good in foreign countries with strange names.

[Ugh]

Thanks hilzoy, now I hate him too. ;-)

[KCinDC]

He also helps poor people build houses. I haven't figured out the true satanic motivation for that yet, though.

[Anarch]

"The poor you will have with you always." By trying to alleviate their poverty, he's directly contravening the will of Jesus.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, sneaky.

[liberal japonicus]

Hilzoy, you forgot to mention that like Stalin, Carter was also a Georgian...

[KCinDC]

He's also guilty of blasphemy for having the initials JC.

[Slartibartfast]

I think I've mentioned that I met him once, on an airplane. Jimmy is a nice enough fellow, although I do think he shows rather more reverence towards guys like Fidel Castro than I think is appropriate. He did compliment me on my daughters, which I think shows his eyesight is still good.