Senate stays in session

[Steerpike]

Technically speaking. It is done to avoid recess appointments. They have one Senator go in every day and officially convene a session of the Senate. Typically, there isn't going to be anyone else there so the Senate isn't really in session. It's just a technicality.

Any thoughts on this? Misuse of the process or legitimate political tactic. I tend to think of it more along the lines of a legitimate tactic, though the Democrats doing it will just ensure that every Senate does this from here on out whenever the President is of the other party, so it starts another area where tit-for-tat will be played. Still, it seems the Senate can do this legitimately.

As an aside, I think if you're going to have a filibuster the Senate ought to require Senators to actually filibuster, not just take a quick headcount to see if there are 60 votes to end one if it DID happen.

 

[Annie]

Technically speaking. It is done to avoid recess appointments. They have one Senator go in every day and officially convene a session of the Senate. Typically, there isn't going to be anyone else there so the Senate isn't really in session. It's just a technicality.

Any thoughts on this? Misuse of the process or legitimate political tactic. I tend to think of it more along the lines of a legitimate tactic, though the Democrats doing it will just ensure that every Senate does this from here on out whenever the President is of the other party, so it starts another area where tit-for-tat will be played. Still, it seems the Senate can do this legitimately.

As an aside, I think if you're going to have a filibuster the Senate ought to require Senators to actually filibuster, not just take a quick headcount to see if there are 60 votes to end one if it DID happen.

It's legitimate and divisive. Just like the use of politics of personal destruction, overuse of filabusters, blocking of appointments, investigations after investigations, special prosecutors, what goes around comes around. The people be damned.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think all of those other things are "legitimate" though. The politics of personal destruction (which has become a catch-phrase) is not legitimate in many applications. Use of subpoena power or investigational authority can certainly be illegitimate and an abuse of authority, depending on how it is applied. Same goes for special prosecutors.

But yes, these are all used as political tools these days. But most Americans don't demand such powers be used legitimately. They just want to root for their team (D) or (R), and stick a finger in the other guy's eye. With a citizenry like that we get what we deserve.

 

[Annie]

I don't think all of those other things are "legitimate" though. The politics of personal destruction (which has become a catch-phrase) is not legitimate in many applications. Use of subpoena power or investigational authority can certainly be illegitimate and an abuse of authority, depending on how it is applied. Same goes for special prosecutors.

But yes, these are all used as political tools these days. But most Americans don't demand such powers be used legitimately. They just want to root for their team (D) or (R), and stick a finger in the other guy's eye. With a citizenry like that we get what we deserve.

There is no way to legally stop the politics of personal destruction, unless the candidate sues for liable or slander. That might be an interesting case, but we know where those standards are. The whole thing about special prosecutors, sort of like the aforementioned, there really are few limits and would take a more than boatload of money to sue for harrassment.

I concur though with deserving the government we choose. Too few bother to follow.

 

[Meemer]

I have to try to look at why these powers were added to the arsenal of whatever branch can exercise them.
People had to be playing the 'what if' game because things had happened that compromised the system.
For example: Let's go back to the Reagan admin. when some of the same people currently in this admin. (Rums and Cheney come to mind quickly and some others had to have been there). Their jobs were to find ways of legally stretching executive powers. They dug and dug and their toil came to fruition with George the Lesser. I have no idea what was done with George the First's admin. and his corruption of power but it's clear to all the amount of stretching that's been done over the past seven years. (Unfortunately for the DC gang, manyof there efforts have not been legal, see the Justice Dept., Plame, and so on.) Therefore I have to agree to whatever retaliatory tactic is employed to stop the abuse, regardless of whichever party uses it whenever.
And what's wrong with a good old-fashioned, Jimmy Stewart type of filibuster?

 

[Steerpike]

Nothing wrong with a Jimmy Stewart style filibuster. That kind is fine. I don't care for it when they just pretend someone filibustered because they don't have 60 votes and they all go home.

 

[Meemer]

I don't like that either, Steer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup, the next time the Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Dem if they do this exact stunt you will hear the howls from the libs about obstruction and usurping power and any other claim to bad mouth the move and of course the press will be right there egging them on.

 

[Taomon]

Technically speaking. It is done to avoid recess appointments. They have one Senator go in every day and officially convene a session of the Senate. Typically, there isn't going to be anyone else there so the Senate isn't really in session. It's just a technicality.

Any thoughts on this? Misuse of the process or legitimate political tactic. I

This seems to be the only way to keep Bush from ushering more harmful appointments who would never make through a Senate hearing anyhow.

Any president that uses the recess to circumvent Constitutional law should be slapped, but that God we have some Senators willing to put an end to this practice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This seems to be the only way to keep Bush from ushering more harmful appointments who would never make through a Senate hearing anyhow.

Any president that uses the recess to circumvent Constitutional law should be slapped, but that God we have some Senators willing to put an end to this practice.

Are you stupid? It is Constitutional to make the appointments. Another moron that can not read nor comprehend the document that establishes our Government at the Federal level.

And remember these words when the Senate is controlled by Republicans and they finally do to a Democrat what the Democrats have done to this President.

 

[Psychoblues]

I wait breathlessly for that day, rgs.

Are you stupid? It is Constitutional to make the appointments. Another moron that can not read nor comprehend the document that establishes our Government at the Federal level.

And remember these words when the Senate is controlled by Republicans and they finally do to a Democrat what the Democrats have done to this President.

Been there and done that. Remember the words of Tom Delay and Trent Lott in 1993. "We support the troops but we do not support the President". I had never heard such arrogance and I am not likely to forget it.

 

[Taomon]

Are you stupid? It is Constitutional to make the appointments. Another moron that can not read nor comprehend the document that establishes our Government at the Federal level.

And remember these words when the Senate is controlled by Republicans and they finally do to a Democrat what the Democrats have done to this President.

I am not stupid. I am fed up with Bush and his hellbent intent on destroying America for the poor. He wants the industrialists to control America because that is his base, his constituency, his people. Not you or I. We are fodder for his war efforts, we are consumers for the people that matter more...the wealthy.

You better wake up. And I did say that any president that does what Bush has done with appointments deserves the same fate. I am not focusing on Bush or the Republicans, I am focusing on corruption.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am not stupid. I am fed up with Bush and his hellbent intent on destroying America for the poor. He wants the industrialists to control America because that is his base, his constituency, his people. Not you or I. We are fodder for his war efforts, we are consumers for the people that matter more...the wealthy.

You better wake up. And I did say that any president that does what Bush has done with appointments deserves the same fate. I am not focusing on Bush or the Republicans, I am focusing on corruption.

What a tool. Remind me of all the charges against Bush or Cheney. Ohh wait, there are none. Bush has been VERY restrained in recess appointments, appointing only those that Congress refused to even vote on. The intent was that the Senate advice the President, not block his appointees by back room deals to prevent a Senate vote. The "corruption" would be the Democrats that took it to that level and did not have the fortitude to abide by a majority vote, relying on political dirty tricks like sending in one Senator a day.

 

[maineman]

I think it is a very creative way to stop Bush's use of recess appointments.

Just think back to all those changes made to committee rules when the republicans were in power.... now that the tables have been, at least partially turned, I think it is refreshing to see the democrats flexing what muscle they can flex with a republican in the white house and a filibuster wielding minority standing against them.

If republicans feel frustrated now, just wait until they are rendered even MORE irrelevant by a democrat in the white house!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And when your democrat makes President and Republicans take back the Senate who will be whining about obstruction then? I can hear it now, a Republican Senate utilizes this tactic and the Press will be on for the whole time about how it is a devisive unneeded attack on civility and our Republic.

 

[maineman]

And when your democrat makes President and Republicans take back the Senate who will be whining about obstruction then? I can hear it now, a Republican Senate utilizes this tactic and the Press will be on for the whole time about how it is a devisive unneeded attack on civility and our Republic.

the republicans are not only not going to take back the senate, they will lose more seats in 2008. YOu have too many retiring and vulnerable ones to hold what you have.

 

[maineman]

McConnell's in trouble...Coleman is in trouble.... Sununu is in trouble... Collins is in trouble... Smith may have a primary fight from the right just to make it to the general election and five incumbents are retiring.

We get to sixty, watch out!

 

[Taomon]

What a tool. Remind me of all the charges against Bush or Cheney. Ohh wait, there are none. Bush has been VERY restrained in recess appointments, appointing only those that Congress refused to even vote on.

And by making those recess appointment he circumvented Congress and that circumvents the Constitution. I am a tool? You are a blind fool. Are you so far up Bush's ass that you cannot see that he is wrong?

The intent was that the Senate advice the President, not block his appointees by back room deals to prevent a Senate vote.

Wrong! The vote is part of a system of checks and balances. You do understand that right Sarge? Is it better for democracy to allow a president to put anyone he wants in offices that affect the public or should our elected officials (who are supposed to represent us on such matters) have a say in it and if necessary, block an appointee?
Look at John R Bolton. He was appointed as ambassador to the UN for the US during a recess. This guy was the worst choice for that position. Even some Republicans knew this and voted against him.

Thank God we have people in the Senate and Congress to evaluate appointments like this one. Sure Bush slipped one past the goalie, but now he cannot and rightfully so.

The "corruption" would be the Democrats that took it to that level and did not have the fortitude to abide by a majority vote, relying on political dirty tricks like sending in one Senator a day.

Dirty Tricks? Take a closer look at Rove, Bush & Cheney for political dirty tricks. Corruption is rampant in the Republican and Democratic parties, this is true...but the Constitution is in place to help us keep a handle on things. What was corrupt was the Republican majority during the first half of Bush's presidency. They allowed a lot of very bad laws to be pushed through. Worse than the Democrats, and they are nothing to write home about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And by making those recess appointment he circumvented Congress and that circumvents the Constitution. I am a tool? You are a blind fool. Are you so far up Bush's ass that you cannot see that he is wrong?
Wrong! The vote is part of a system of checks and balances. You do understand that right Sarge? Is it better for democracy to allow a president to put anyone he wants in offices that affect the public or should our elected officials (who are supposed to represent us on such matters) have a say in it and if necessary, block an appointee?
Look at John R Bolton. He was appointed as ambassador to the UN for the US during a recess. This guy was the worst choice for that position. Even some Republicans knew this and voted against him.

Thank God we have people in the Senate and Congress to evaluate appointments like this one. Sure Bush slipped one past the goalie, but now he cannot and rightfully so.
Dirty Tricks? Take a closer look at Rove, Bush & Cheney for political dirty tricks. Corruption is rampant in the Republican and Democratic parties, this is true...but the Constitution is in place to help us keep a handle on things. What was corrupt was the Republican majority during the first half of Bush's presidency. They allowed a lot of very bad laws to be pushed through. Worse than the Democrats, and they are nothing to write home about.

You ARE that stupid. Let me spell it out to you AGAIN. Bush only appointed people that the Senate refused to allow a vote on. There was no check and balance, the democrats refused to allow any vote at all.

And I suggest you reread your Constitution and the LAWS of the land, The President most definately has the power and the RIGHT to appoint people during recess.

Every President does and as far as I know every President has done SO.

Let me guess your under 30 and a product of our enlightened liberally destroyed public school system?

 

[maineman]

You ARE that stupid. Let me spell it out to you AGAIN. Bush only appointed people that the Senate refused to allow a vote on. There was no check and balance, the democrats refused to allow any vote at all.

And I suggest you reread your Constitution and the LAWS of the land, The President most definately has the power and the RIGHT to appoint people during recess.

Every President does and as far as I know every President has done SO.

Let me guess your under 30 and a product of our enlightened liberally destroyed public school system?

please list the recess appointments made by Nixon, Carter, Kennedy and Eisenhower, for starters.