Senate Nano-Sessions

[fishbob]

I said it was not unconstitutional. Yes, the Senate does have the power to control its own sessions. What they are doing here is staying in continuous session for the express purpose of preventing the president from carrying out his duties; no Senate business whatsoever is conducted at these nanosessions. They won't convene for the purpose of actually holding hearings and votes on the nominees, many of whom would probably be approved if voted on by the full Senate. Hgc and others complain that these nominees are utterly reprehensible (I think "political hacks" was the term hgc used), but if that were true, the Democratic majority in the Senate would have no trouble actually voting on their nominations and rejecting them. They're reprehensible to Harry Reid and hgc, but not to the full Senate.

Again, there's nothing unconstitutional about what Reid is doing here. But it sets a terrible precedent for future presidents when the tables are reversed, as they will surely be.

Those pesky checks and balances are really getting on your nerves.

 

[BPSCG]

Does that work for you?

No. I said, "if you can find an article showing how Repubs have used this trick before..."

Show me where the Republicans, when they had a Senate majority during Clinton's presidency, repeatedly opened sessions and immediately closed them again.

I never claimed the Republicans gave all Clinton's nominees up-or-down votes, though I believe the Dems have been more aggressive at bottling up Bush's nominees than the Repubs were against Clinton's.

 

[BPSCG]

Your "fix" extended too far, this administration is the only one trying to circumvent the constitution. A future Republican Senate majority would first have to find a Dem President not willing to compromise and put up an acceptably moderate nominee.

That's nonsense on a pogo stick.

If these were truly not "acceptably moderate," then the Dems would be delighted to hold hearings on them to show how immoderate they were, vote them out of committee with a recommendation that the full Senate disapprove the selections, and then have the full Senate vote them down.

They are resorting to this tactic because these nominees would get approved by the full Senate, which, let me remind you, is a Democratic majority. Yes, the Democrat-controlled Senate would approve these nominees.

The guy here who is not "acceptably moderate" is Harry Reid, who resorts to this stunt when he knows the senators on his side of the aisle would vote to approve the nominees.

 

[BPSCG]

Those pesky checks and balances are really getting on your nerves.

In 2011, after the Republicans recapture the Senate, President Barak Obama will curse Harry Reid in his prayers each night, as the Republicans, having refused to hold hearings on his nominee to replace retiring Secretary of State Joe Biden, thwart his attempts to make a recess appointment by convening three or four times a week for twenty seconds at a time.

You really don't get it, do you? This will hurt all future presidents whose parties don't control the Senate.

 

[Random]

No. I said, "if you can find an article showing how Repubs have used this trick before..."

Show me where the Republicans, when they had a Senate majority during Clinton's presidency, repeatedly opened sessions and immediately closed them again.

So, I’m supposed to get worked up not by Democrats blocking Bush nominees, but by the specific technical mechanism they use? Yeah, I sense a real rush to the barricades on that one.

I never claimed the Republicans gave all Clinton's nominees up-or-down votes, though I believe the Dems have been more aggressive at bottling up Bush's nominees than the Repubs were against Clinton's.

Well, Republicans blocked at least 60 Clinton nominees. Not sure how many are being held up by Democrats, but I don’t think it is that high. Besides, it’s not crazy at all to want to block recess appointments from this president in particular. Remember John Bolton?

 

[BPSCG]

Well, Republicans blocked at least 60 Clinton nominees. Not sure how many are being held up by Democrats, but I don’t think it is that high.

Then you need to read the OP again, which says it's 160. That's currently. That's not counting the nominees who've withdrawn throughout Bush's two terms after waiting, in some cases, literally for years for a committee hearing (meanwhile, they're all hot to get Roger Clemens to testify about steroids, proving once again that congress is a horse's ass.).

Besides, it’s not crazy at all to want to block recess appointments from this president in particular. Remember John Bolton?

You mean the John Bolton who, as Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State led the successful effort to rescind the 1970s UN resolution that had equated Zionism with racism?

Or do you mean the John Bolton who created the Proliferation Security Initiative, an international effort of 15 core countries and 60 ad-hoc countries, led by the United States, to interdict transfer of banned weapons and weapons technology?

 

[Praktik]

You mean the John Bolton who, as Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State led the successful effort to rescind the 1970s UN resolution that had equated Zionism with racism?

Or do you mean the John Bolton who created the Proliferation Security Initiative, an international effort of 15 core countries and 60 ad-hoc countries, led by the United States, to interdict transfer of banned weapons and weapons technology?

Quick - someone get a statue ordered up! Make sure the sculptor can handle the wiry look of his two foot mustache.

And while we're talking about noble individuals misunderstood by the world - what about all the good things Saddam Hussein did?

I'll tell you one thing - he employed a lot of people in the Palace-building industry - without which many thousands would have been without work!

 

[Praktik]

You really don't get it, do you? This will hurt all future presidents whose parties don't control the Senate.

No - I really don't think he undertands (as we do) that the Republicans are not operating here out of self-interest, or partisanship - but rather for principle, and the future health of democracy in the good ol' US of A.

(sigh) Some people will NEVER get it BPSCG, better let this one drop....

 

[Lurker]

So the Senate's "prerogatives" are more important than the ongoing business of the country? I know the Senate is full of blowhard gasbags who think the sun shines out of their own behinds, but come on...

If the Senate doesn't like a nominee, then it should vote him/her down. Or do you think a lone Democratic committee chairman should have the power to prevent a Democratic-majority Senate from approving an appointment?

This is no way to run a government. It will someday come back to bite a Democratic president when a Republican majority does exactly the same thing. What recourse will that Democratic president have?

I agree with you BPSCG. This will bite the Dems in the arse be it used against them in elections or come back to haunt them when they own the Presidency.

Plus, I would rather get positions filled than let them sit unfilled. Unless an appointee is deemed incompetent or unqualified by the Senate, I think they should be approved.

This is getting out of hand.

 

[BPSCG]

This is getting out of hand.

Indeed. If Dems today can get away with refusing to hold hearings for executive branch nominees for years at a time, and block the president from even temporarily filling those slots, where does it stop? When President Obama wants to fill Secretary of State Joe Biden's position in February, 2011 (after Biden is caught in bed with a live boy, a dead goat, two corn dogs, and $300,000 in small unmarked bills), what recourse will the Dems have when the Repubs, having recaptured the Senate in 2010, refuse to even hold hearings? What recourse will they have when the Repubs convene the Senate for a few seconds a week in December 2011 and January 2012 for the express purpose of preventing President Obama from even temporarily filling the post?

Oh, that would never happen. Repubs aren't mean, nasty, spiteful, vengeful people itching for a chance to get even...

 

[Darat]

Sounds to me as if you want a change to your constitution to remove a constitutional power the senate currently has - do you think there would be enough support for such a change?

 

[Random]

Indeed. If Dems today can get away with refusing to hold hearings for executive branch nominees for years at a time, and block the president from even temporarily filling those slots, where does it stop? When President Obama wants to fill Secretary of State Joe Biden's position in February, 2011 (after Biden is caught in bed with a live boy, a dead goat, two corn dogs, and $300,000 in small unmarked bills), what recourse will the Dems have when the Repubs, having recaptured the Senate in 2010, refuse to even hold hearings? What recourse will they have when the Repubs convene the Senate for a few seconds a week in December 2011 and January 2012 for the express purpose of preventing President Obama from even temporarily filling the post?

Oh, that would never happen. Repubs aren't mean, nasty, spiteful, vengeful people itching for a chance to get even...

Republicans did it first. You can argue that they did not use this precise tactic, but that’s a bit Clintonesque. This “Democrats better back off or there will be payback” line is silly. There is already payback. You are looking at it.

 

[Praktik]

How about this for a novel idea?

Instead of nominating party ideologues to important posts - the President instead nominates people that stand a chance of passing on a straight up and down vote - even if Congress is under the control of the opposing party.

Then we end up with candidates who can speak to both sides of the divide without causing strife.

We end up with candidates who are marked by their ability to work with both parties, and incorporate the best ideas of both.

Instead of hacks like Soup-Strainer Bolton.

Then we don't end up with a President, waiting for a recess like a coward so he can slip his party-crony in.

We end up with Presidents working with congress to nominate candidates everyone can agree on.

Isn't THAT what democracy is all about?

 

[BPSCG]

How about this for a novel idea?

Instead of nominating party ideologues to important posts - the President instead nominates people that stand a chance of passing on a straight up and down vote - even if Congress is under the control of the opposing party.

Earth to Praktik - these are people that stand a chance of passing on a straight up and down vote. There are enough Democrats who would vote for them even despite Reid's wishes, that they would be confirmed.

That's why Reid and Co. are resorting to cutsie parliamentary games. They refuse to hold committee hearings, without which the full Senate can't vote, and then they block the recess appointments with this new parliamentary tactic. If they stood no chance of being approved, Reid and his cronies would let them have their hearings, the committee would then vote to recommend to the full Senate that the nominee be disapproved, and the full Senate would then vote the nominee down, resulting in embarrassment to the President.

Really, you might want to consider whether or not you actually understand the issue before posting.

 

[BPSCG]

Sounds to me as if you want a change to your constitution to remove a constitutional power the senate currently has - do you think there would be enough support for such a change?

This amounts to an abuse of that power. I wasn't there in 1787, but I'm pretty sure the authors of the Constitution didn't have this kind of behavior in mind when they wrote the article on recess appointments. Can't say I know what they would have done had it occurred to them their descendants would behave like this.

 

[Praktik]

Really, you might want to consider whether or not you actually understand the issue before posting.

Earth to BPSCG - the thread's scope had widened and we were even talking about the Bolton nomination, who is a perfect example of a President waiting for his moment to implant a hard-core ideologue into a key post while the opposition controlled congress was in recess. Why?

Because he didn't stand a chance of winning a vote.

Don't pretend that this hasn't been the classic use of recess appointments and I can do without the condescension.

 

[BPSCG]

Earth to BPSCG - the thread's scope had widened

I wasn't aware a side issue = scope-widening.

I can do without the condescension.

Then stop inviting it by making phony comparisons. These are not "hard-core ideologues," as evidenced by the fact that they would be confirmed, even by a Democratic-controlled Senate. You don't have to resort to parliamentary games to vote down an unqualified candidate. You only have to do it when your own party won't support your opposition to that candidate. If anyone here is the "hard-core ideologue," it's Harry Reid.

 

[Random]

I wasn't aware a side issue = scope-widening.

Then stop inviting it by making phony comparisons. These are not "hard-core ideologues," as evidenced by the fact that they would be confirmed, even by a Democratic-controlled Senate. You don't have to resort to parliamentary games to vote down an unqualified candidate. You only have to do it when your own party won't support your opposition to that candidate. If anyone here is the "hard-core ideologue," it's Harry Reid.

The spilt between Democrats, Republicans, and Independants is 49/48/2 (Bernie Sanders and Lieberman are independant, and the missing senator is Trent Lott who resigned last month to start his lobbying carreer early). Thats a pretty slippery hold on the senate, especially with Lieberman's tendency to vote Republican in the name of "bipartisanship". If the Repubs vote party line, they only have to flip one or two senators to get a nominee through. Its entirely possible for the Republicans to get some loonies in there, especially with some of thier screwier tactics (for example, the GOP trying to force the Dems to support vonSpakovsky for the FEC by tying his vote to the votes of other FEC nominees who are rational).

Holding the line on some of these nominees seems perfectly rational.

 

[geni]

what recourse will the Dems have when the Repubs, having recaptured the Senate in 2010, refuse to even hold hearings? What recourse will they have when the Repubs convene the Senate for a few seconds a week in December 2011 and January 2012 for the express purpose of preventing President Obama from even temporarily filling the post?

Make sure that the Deputy Secretary of State is competant and nominate someone who doesn't actualy exist or for some other reason can't be legaly aproved. Well that would be the british aproach to the problem after doing it for a 100 years it would be considered tradition that no one would dare change.

If however that doesn't seem acceptable you find the most well qualified person you can and make it an election issue at the next sentate election.

 

[BPSCG]

Thats a pretty slippery hold on the senate, especially with Lieberman's tendency to vote Republican in the name of "bipartisanship".

[derail]
Without searching through his voting record, I think you'll find Lieberman votes with the GOP mostly on national security issues; other than that, he's pretty reliably Democrat.
[/derail]

If the Repubs vote party line, they only have to flip one or two senators to get a nominee through.

And the thought of the Dems flipping a Repub or two (Arlen Specter? Chuck Hagel?) is simply inconceivable, because we all know that Republicans are all mindless, robotic automatons...

Its entirely possible for the Republicans to get some loonies in there, especially with some of thier screwier tactics (for example, the GOP trying to force the Dems to support vonSpakovsky for the FEC by tying his vote to the votes of other FEC nominees who are rational).

What? You mean there are Dems who would vote to let loonies in? How can that be?

You think maybe it's possible that maybe they aren't all that loony in the first place?

Holding the line on some of these nominees seems perfectly rational.

You mean "A minority of the Senate pulling every parliamentary trick in the book to thwart the will of the majority and keep out someone they don't like seems perfectly rational."

Again, don't bellyache when the Repubs pick up the Dem's cute new trick and start using it themselves four years from now.