WTF! Bolton WILL serve as UN Ambassador, by way of "recess appointment"

[jefferson_dem]

if necessary, so says Kate O'beirne. WTF! Why would we be surprised? Fucking bastards!

[hippiepunk]

1. If he does it then

Bushit is fucked

[jefferson_dem]

2. As if Bolton didn't have a credibility problem to begin with. Shit.

Imagine if he gets installed under such fucked up cirumstances.

[rodeodance]

14. If this happens i think some in Congress will go balistic!!

The dems better go balistic!!

[regnaD kciN]

15. Nobody will care...

Bolton has been at the center of media attention because of the hearings, but, once he's installed through this legislative sleight-of-hand, he'll disappear from the limelight. Most people will just be happy they don't have to read about him anymore.

Although it may disappoint us here, few people know of the importance (if any) of a U.N. ambassador, and even fewer care. It makes no difference to them whether John Bolton, Bill Clinton, Jerry Falwell, or Donald Duck holds the position. Remember, this is the post that, for most of the Nixon administration, was filled by Shirley Temple!

If anyone thinks this is going to cause a major public-opinion uprising against the Bush administration, they're living in a dream world.

[knowbody0]

3. what is recess appointment

[rodeodance]

5. is there a lin? -where did you hear this?

[jefferson_dem]

10. On Capital Gang, just a moment ago. No one on the panel contradicted

O'beirne either. That was the first i heard it but...not a bit surprised. Those fuckers never let any shred of humility or SHAME stop 'em before.

[rodeodance]

12. thanks. oh drats!!

[Terre]

30. Oh phew!

I thought it was a done deal. She said "if necessary".

I wouldn't put it past * either, but I can tell you that this would be hugely dangerous, considering the bad press Bolton is getting.

[rodeodance]

7. when congress is not in session, the pres. had authority to install

appointees. He has done it with Fed. Judges also.

[jefferson_dem]

8. A constituionally protected yet politically shady way to install a

problematic appointment.

************

A recess appointment is a constitutionally protected right of the executive branch of the United States government. It allows the executive branch to fill vacant positions with appointees during Congressional recess without the need for immediate Senate confirmation. The commission or appointment must be ratified (i.e. approved) by the Congress by the end of the next session.

This executive right has been frequently used to fill vacancies with candidates who might prove difficult to confirm or face staunch opposition from the Senate. The recess appointment is made in the hopes that by the time the next Congressional session begins, opposition will have died down or a new controlling party will have emerged in favor of the appointment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

[hector459]

51. This kind of shit should haunt all Repuke politicians in the future.

Dems just need to remind the voters what the Republicans were doing and HOW they did it.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

9. Here's one definition

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=48474&forum=4

A recess appointment is one of the executive powers enumerated in the Constitution: "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" (II, 2, 3). The provision was originally created to fill vacancies that actually occurred during a recess, but it has since morphed into an all-purpose executive tool to counter Senate intransigence. President Kennedy, for instance, appointed Thurgood Marshall to the bench during a recess because he feared opposition from Southern senators. By the time Marshall's nomination came before the Senate, that resistance had been beaten back.

Presidents also use recess appointments to delay a confirmation vote until after an election, when the nominee possesses the advantage of incumbency and, ideally, faces a friendlier Congress. President Eisenhower appointed three justices during recesses: Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart. All three occurred immediately before an election, and all were confirmed the following spring by a new Congress.

[Terre]

27. Here's a great link that comments on *'s abuse

of recess appointments:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/pryo-f24.shtml

Plus another that explains the process:
http://www.thisnation.com/question/010.html

[wakeme2008]

36. President appointment when Congress is out of session...

Only good during the current congress.

[LiberalFighter]

62. Appointment made when Senate is not in session

They won't be in session the first week in May.

I believe they can serve up to the end of the current session of Congress. (2 years or less)

[AlGore-08.com]

65. Definition of "Recess appointment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

A recess appointment is a constitutionally protected right of the executive branch of the United States government. It allows the executive branch to fill vacant positions with appointees during Congressional recess without the need for immediate Senate confirmation. The commission or appointment must be ratified (i.e. approved) by the Congress by the end of the next session.

This executive right has been frequently used to fill vacancies with candidates who might prove difficult to confirm or face staunch opposition from the Senate. The recess appointment is made in the hopes that by the time the next Congressional session begins, opposition will have died down or a new controlling party will have emerged in favor of the appointment.

[indepat]

4. Democrats, to survive, must use every f*****g dirty trick Repukes use

with a little relish and pizazz added for lagnaippe.

[regnaD kciN]

17. The problem is...

...that we need to gain political control first.

:-(

[indepat]

23. Should have preferenced my remark with "When and if there is ever an

unrigged national election again and the Democrats regain control"

[lala_rawraw]

6. What does that mean? I don't follow this "recess" thing?

[tsuki]

11. Is Congress in recess?

[jefferson_dem]

13. Glance at the congressional calendar gives these two prime opportunities

for shenanigans -

Memorial Day recess May 30-Jun. 3

Fourth of July recess Jul. 4-8

[tsuki]

16. Will he have to be confirmed when they reconvene?

[jefferson_dem]

19. I believe a recess appointment serves till the close of the legislative

session. That would mean until Jan 07 i think. But i may be wrong...;-).

[flpoljunkie]

21. The Senate alone will be in recess May 2-6.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Right. But you would think that they would at least wait until the FR

committee reconvenes and takes up the Bolton nomination, which won't happen until after that recess. But, with this band of bitches, all bets are off!

[flpoljunkie]

33. Not necessarily, if they think Bolton is toast. Dubya doesn't like losing.

I could certainly see Bully Boy Bush appointing Bully Boy Bolton during the May 2-6 recess to show who's boss to the Congress. And, remember Bolton was Cheney's point man at the State Department and he is pushing Bolton for the United Nations.

Dubya has had Congress under his thumb; if they stand up against the abysmal nomination, it could get ugly. Whether they will remains to be seen.

[markus]

50. The Senate recesses by consent

If someone objects, there has to be a vote. And votes can be blocked or slowed down procedurally. It's such inside baseball that 90% of Americans would have no clue. Hell we could spin it as How Dare They Go On Vacation with All the Problems Facing Our Country.

Think of it as a reverse fillibuster. No recess, no recess appointment.

I begin to like this idea.

It would need to be done with the Senate attempted to recess, after a quorum had left town already.

I've been gone from DC for over a decade, and I wasn't in legislative so I don't know the rules perfectly. Any Senate experts out there have an idea if this would work?

[whometense]

57. This is a very cool idea.

Think Reid might do it? No question, the dems on the Foreign Relations Committee are furious enough to go for it.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

18. Frank Gaffney floated the "recess appointment" idea on April 20th...

...National Review Online:

http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200504200943.asp

Confronted with members of his own party balking at taking a recorded vote, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar was compelled to postpone further efforts to confirm Bolton until after an upcoming Senate recess during the first week in May and further staff investigations into allegations that the nominee is a "serial abuser." It would hardly be surprising if such efforts do not encourage still others who would like to see John Bolton run out of town on a rail to come forward with anecdotes of their own, however implausible or undocumented. This is especially so since Senate Democrats' official efforts are being augmented by a campaign against this nominee undertaken by George Soros and others on the radical Left, who were unable to defeat George W. Bush last Fall but relish the chance to bloody him by attacking proxies like Bolton.

So the question recurs: What is a president to do? As a practical matter, given the stakes, President Bush really has only one choice: Promptly, publicly and personally reaffirm his strong support for John Bolton; declare that he has complete confidence in this nominee's qualifications, judgment and temperament; and announce that the United States needs to be represented at the United Nations without further delay by someone in whom he has such confidence. This is, after all, a moment when — in the wake of outrageous UN scandals and misconduct — there is unprecedented agreement that historic and possibly far-reaching decisions must be taken, decisions that may determine not only the future course but the very character of that organization. It is unacceptable to have the U.S. ambassador's seat there remain unfilled at such a time.

Consequently, President Bush should serve notice on the Senate: Complete whatever further investigations now indicated and vote the Bolton nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor of the Senate before the upcoming May recess. Or face a recess appointment of Bolton that will enable him to get to work at the United Nations while senators are engaging in constituent services and other important matters outside of Washington.

Perhaps President Bush can make this bitter pill less difficult for committee Democrats to swallow. The president could offer to provide anger-management classes to senators who might be infuriated by their inability further to defame so estimable a public servant as John Bolton and to prevent him from advancing at the U.N. the president's policies — policies that are, in the end, their real reason for their efforts to deny him this post.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Explanation of recess appointment (in the context of a Clinton appointee)

From Slate.com
Dated June 14, 1999

What Is a Recess Appointment?
By Michael Brus

Earlier this month, on the final day of a congressional recess, President Clinton appointed James Hormel ambassador to Luxembourg without Senate confirmation. The move prompted Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to remark, "(Clinton) has shown contempt for Congress and the Constitution." Is Inhofe right?

Clinton's act was certainly constitutional. A recess appointment is one of the executive powers enumerated in the Constitution: "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" (II, 2, 3). The provision was originally created to fill vacancies that actually occurred during a recess, but it has since morphed into an all-purpose executive tool to counter Senate intransigence. President Kennedy, for instance, appointed Thurgood Marshall to the bench during a recess because he feared opposition from Southern senators. By the time Marshall's nomination came before the Senate, that resistance had been beaten back.

Presidents also use recess appointments to delay a confirmation vote until after an election, when the nominee possesses the advantage of incumbency and, ideally, faces a friendlier Congress. President Eisenhower appointed three justices during recesses: Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart. All three occurred immediately before an election, and all were confirmed the following spring by a new Congress.

Read more.

[CoffeeCat]

22. This is good....reallly, really good!

Bolton is a psycho. I imagine there are dozens and dozens of people who can treat us with delicious stories of his madness.

I imagine that these stories will slowly leak, similar to how the Bernie Kerrick psycho stories oozed out into the sunshine.

If the Reps pull a backhanded move and get Bolton in---there will be more interest in him and the media will dig a bit deeper. That's exactly what happened with Kerrick.

Won't the Republicans look stupid when they overstep their bounds and look like powermongers who appointed a completely imbalanced, scandalous, sociopathic dimwit?

Yes! The answer is YES!

[tsuki]

24. Part of me doesn't want him to go to the UN, but part of me wants

him to go so I can see how HE will "reform" the UN. I know that does not make sense, so don't flame me.

[peacetalksforall]

35. The Shakespearian element is tempting. But this is the here and now

of our future, not a play or novel that someone wrote in the past.

Take down the UN and the US rules with none of them having to account to anyone except to whichever partner steps up to the plate to co-rule....the UK, Russia, China, or India.

The really weird part of it all is that we are a debtor nation trying to rule the world.

[FourStarDemocrat]

44. I wouldn't want to take that chance..we've already lost enough credibility

And we will have more damage to undue with Bolton let loose there when we finally get a democratic administration back in office.

[calimary]

42. Besides, it's another excellent reason to stir up a SHITSTORM!!!

NEVER let 'em hear the end of it.

I tell ya, there are many tight sphincter muscles all over Capitol Hill, what with the adverse way the public reacted to the Schiavo travesty, and how the public is also refusing to swallow the Social Security PIRATIZATION scheme, PLUS the discomfort more and more people are feeling about the religiosos pushing their agenda on everybody (seen the polls on these things lately? They're NOT good for bush and congress). So they pull this one at their own risk.

I just hope activist Democrats EVERYWHERE won't take it lying down. If we don't give 'em hell, they'll think they can just get away with it and everything's just ducky.

Consider this thread for some VERY useful consideration of (and antidotes to) the "oh well, it's probably no use" problem:

Contact your US Representative - IMPEACH BUSH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1739608

[CoffeeCat]

26. GEE! ...and the Republicans are calling the Dems on the carpet...

...for using the filibuster???????????????????

Yeah, the Republicans can pull any underhanded shit they want. They can steal elections, bilk votes from religious grannies when they don't give a rat's ass about Jesus and now THIS.

Those fuckers!!

I'm just enraged after reading more about this shit!!

And I hardly ever swear!!!

I'm a member of the PTA goddammit!!

OOhhhhhhhhhhhhh...these malicious bastard chum-eating sharks bring out the worst in everyone!!!

Assholes!!

[ChiciB1]

58. Oh Geez... I Hardly Ever "Fucking" Swear Either!

But ever since the 2000 Election I've learned a few choice words!! And a lot of them from fellow Du'ers (a joke)!

But it's certainly true that this gang has two-stepped it's way through far too many land mines!! I've read so many books on these crooks that nothing makes me wonder anymore. It would be an enormous task to list only HALF of the shenanigans and outright corruption they have perpetrated upon us.

Do I dare hope that EVERYONE meets Waterloo someday????

Bolton is a JOKE and I think Lugar, Coleman, Chafee, Allen and all the rest KNOW it!!

At any rate, it was a very lively hearing and it was good to see some Fighting Dems for once!

[CoffeeCat]

61. I hear ya!

I'm glad the Dems are showing some spine. It's about time.

I've read a great deal about the corruption, and it's just too much to take sometimes.

I usually can control myself, but as this post demonstrates, I can't contain my rage for this administration sometimes.

If I let it all soak in, I feel totally overwhelmed and helpless. So--swearing on a messageboard and venting to my husband helps a little bit.

At least I'm not swearing at others--like John LightningBOLTon!!

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

28. Eleanor Clift mentioned this possibility on the McLaughlin Group

tonight as well.

Per usual Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley, who I refer to as that fat obnoxious Brit, were spouting their unending praise for that psycho Bolton.

I'm hoping this nomination will go down in flames, but I really do believe that at the end of the day, the Pukes will vote in lockstep and push him through.

[Patiod]

63. We call him Fat Tony

As in "Eleanor made a great point, but then Fat Tony kept trying to interupt her"...

We LOVE McLaughlin group, and love yelling at the TV for Fat Tony to STFU. John McLaughlin is a laugh RIOT, and, in spite of Eleanor Clift's recent loss, she seems to be showing even more spine then usual.

[merbex]

29. If the Democratic leadership doesn't make this an issue

I've had it

The Democratic leadership has to come to the realization that most Americans because of many reasons (working long hours,busy with kids,MSM NOT doing their job etc) are not as well informed as past generations of Americans.

Therefore, Democratic Leadership must inform and educate,with the tools at hand. It is going to take a coordinated effort.

I bet everyone that reads this post knows of at least 5 people who are more qualified to fill the UN post than Bolton.

He is not the only person in America that can fill this position. This is because Bush wants him. Therefore, evidently, it is perfectly OK to bully, harass, and threaten those you work with;as long as you're friends with W you too can get an appointment to any diplomatic post this country has vacant.

As long as you're friends with W to hell with the potential consequences if this nut job lets lose on another Ambassador from another country.

As long as you're friends with W and a neo con you're in like Flynn

[autorank]

32. They WILL make it an issue, be assured. So will the sane Repubs.

Bush lost his MOJO just after he fixed the election. The Inaugural address was a disaster, paleo conservative went ballistic. It's been down hill since then. So what if he gets a few cabinet appointees, there is a strong, strong bias to give the President who he wants. The rest of his legislative agenda is failing (SS), he's losing allies (DeLay), and he is less feared (look what L. Graham, R, SC did).

Now this! I hope he appoints Bolton. It's time for the world to see just how crazy * is. It's also time for us to get furious along with the sane Republicans, especially in the Senate.

This will ignite a firestorm and I hope it happens.

Think about it:

--Popularity at 44%
--SS Privatization fails miserably
--Republicans flirting with insaniacs who want to de-fund judges
--Appoints maniac, nut job to UN post in sneaky fashion.

Oh yeah, the next few weeks are the turning point. Ever heard the expression, "Sell on the News"? Well 'sell on the news of total Republican dominance. By the time they've achieved it, they have offended so many and inspired so many others, they time is up.

[ellenfl]

34. i agree . . . it could be another nail in dubya's coffin. eom

[Terre]

39. Ya know, I've heard this argument many times

and not regarding just the Bolton nomination, but on EVERYTHING * has or hasn't done. The thought that we should just let * do it, while we sit around and watch him put another nail in his coffin, leaves me a bit uncomfortable.

Part of me likes the idea, but I always come back to: 1) What good will this do?  2) Where do we draw the line?  and  3) What would we be waiting for, as far as the final straw is concerned?

The country is going to hell in a handbasket, and even if his poll ratings drop to zero, do you think this Congress is going to impeach him?

Sorry for all the questions, but just sitting around twiddlin' my thumbs, while my toes are crossed, and watch him dig his grave, seems a bit irresponsible.

[kevsand]

40. You're absolutely right to be concerned.

The dems played this same game with Reagan over twenty years ago. Basically, they said "Let's just let him have what he wants, and when it fails, he'll be done and we'll pick up the pieces."

I'll leave it to you to decide how well that worked...

[merbex]

41. You're absolutely right with regard to Reagan/dems

My big compainlt with Tip O'Neil

I think they thought there was no way the American people would stand for results

Amazing what an "Aw shucks attitude" can screw up and people ALLOW it

[autorank]

46. Terre, these are great questions

Here are some answers that may please you.

Part of me likes the idea, but I always come back to:

1) What good will this do? The main benefit of the Bolton affair is the fact that the press is covering it. They've had 'short attention span theater' focus on other, larger scandals. But they're airing this one (along with Delay). The CA (corporate media) tried to give * a pass on Social Security but failed. They've been allowed a longer leash and the effect is very positive. The other benefit is that by putting up a ridiculous nominee, Republicans with a brain and some standards can make a point with *. He's second term and unpopular. Why not take a shot.

2) Where do we draw the line? Don't forget that Bolton was critical to stealing Florida. He was sent to stop the Miami Dade recount. He bullied his way in, demanded it stop, and helped get the 'hill staffer riot' in place. It's pay back time and this is where we draw the line. The flunky, psycho that screwed us in Florida is going down.

The final straw is more of an incremental process. This is a big step, the Democrats are really fighting, the Republicans with brains are stepping out, and, most importantly, CM is being allowed to cover it for more than one night.

The country is going to hell in a hand basket, and even if his poll ratings drop to zero, do you think this Congress is going to impeach him? I doubt that congress will impeach him short of a tape with * and Bandar Bush in bed together. I believe that with an unleashed press, * will become so unpopular and so dangerous (the 'Justice Sunday' movement, total insanity) that it will be time for him to go. This presumes Cheney leaving under some cloud, which would be easy. The compromise VP (Ford-like) candidate is already undercutting * in the Post, Powell.

All it would have taken at any point save a few months after 911 would have been a fair press, not hostile, just fair enough to cover a story for more than a day. That's why you've heard this so many times. Many times people knew that the scandal was enough to push * out but the coverage simply stopped. Now, the press is acting fair (for whatever reason) and the process is undoing *.

If you want to know for sure that * is going to be resigned, watch for CM to give a sympathetic ear over a period of time to the election fraud story. That means the long knives are out and * has to be totally de-legitimized.

. :hi:

[Terre]

54. Thank you for that

I really appreciate the time you took to answer those questions. All of it, of course, makes sense.

I'm as frustrated and angry with this Administration as everyone else here, so the only way I can get that feeling across is with LTE's, correspondence with my reps, etc. I just can sit around reading posts, and blogs, while I hope for the best.

I love hearing it when things go badly for * and more shoe's drop (it's a real time saver), but I'll only be ready to break out the popcorn, when the CM finally does give a sympathetic ear over a period of time to the election fraud story.

That IS the issue, and only then will I'll heave a sigh of relief.

[necso]

31. They're trying to scare fence-sitting

Senators into the supporting the appointment.

As in: "Do you really want to bring all that shit down on yourself when he is going to be appointed anyway?"

Of course, some Republicans may still want to distance themselves from this lunatic -- and, more generally, from too close an association with the very worst of these misguided extremists and their dangerous, naive policies.

[peacetalksforall]

38. I hope there are a lot of tape recordings going. In which states is

taping legal?

[necso]

43. I don't know the particulars. /nt

[Boo Boo]

37. Go ahead and do it

The only people that'll be happy about this are Bush's hardcore wingnut supporters. In reality it's still a loss for the Shrubster.

It will mean he couldn't bully Senate Republicans into doing whatever he wants. It will mean that Bolton serves with an asterisk next to his name. It will mean that the Dems stayed united, held their ground, and denied Bush what he's fighting tooth and nail for: the confirmation of Bolton, and iron fisted control of the Senate.

The Senate shouldn't confirm Bolton, because he's unfit, but I'm perfectly OK with Bush appointing him during a recess. The neocons are going to bash the UN no matter what---Bolton or no Bolton. As a strategic matter, Bush would be better off with someone else.

If Bush wants to screw himself, let him.

[katinmn]

45. * thinks he's a king

He doesn't care that a majority of people oppose the war, SS privatization, or a creep like Bolton.

We're just here to build the pyramids.
:mad:

[autorank]

47. Well he's just a flunky and so is his dad.

They're the front, probably for the Saudis and certainly for American energy interests. They get out there and do the dirty work, get some significant bucks but look at what they have to do!

Problem w/* is he's delusional, I think you're right, he's seeing himself as some sort of royalty and some sort of chosen one (how could you blame him with all he's gotten away with).

He'll be gone soon, expendable you know, but the real prize is to get rid of the folks behind him!

[FrenchieCat]

48. Assholes!

The whole lot of them!

[Vinca]

49. I heard that on Capital Gang and didn't get the gist of it until I read

this thread. This is frightening. If the idiot actually does it, Democrats should close their offices and go home in protest. There's no reason for them to waste their time in Washington if King George can do whatever he wants anyway.

[katinmn]

53. I agree. Bushco is making a sham out of representative govt

Their only goal is consolidation of power.

Sooner or later those opposed to the RWingers are going to have to take a stronger stand.

[Zynx]

52. We need to work to reduce presidential power in the future.

WAY too much can be done by executive order and this sneaky crap. For instance, a president can just throw up tariffs by themselves.

[whometense]

55. CNN online poll:

From Late Edition

Should John Bolton serve as the US ambassador to the UN?

Yes: 9%
No: 91%

Newsguy felt compelled to add, "As always, these online polls - and this one in particular - should not be treated as scientific.

Yeah. A ringing endorsement for *'s judgment, no?

[ChiciB1]

56. What Am I Missing????

I just watched C-Span this morning. The hearing was about Lugar wanting to vote right then and there, but then Voinavich spoke up and said he wasn't comfortable voting right then and wanted to hear more. My understanding is that they will reconvene May 12th for the vote. This is because the Democrats were so incensed by this nominee and they put up a really good fight. For once I was PROUD of them again.

Is this only temporary, don't they ALL have to vote to confirm???

[arwalden]

59. Sneak 'Em In The Back Door... Typical Slimy Politics

[realFedUp]

64. or in JimmyJeff's case, out the back door

with the rest of the trash.

[ClarkUSA]

60. How unsurprising. If Bush does this, then will it backfire on the GOP?

Makes Bush look like a desperate sneak who can't get his crappy people in any other way.

Then when he does become UN ambassador, will we be treated to plenty of embarassing news coverage outlining his gaffes and insults towards other countries' leaders and his own staff? It can only mean bad news for Bush and the GOP, which is good for us seeing as how 2006 is around the corner.

:popcorn: