Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did the Senate delay GW Bush's recess appointees by going into session just a few minutes in order (Original Post) CTyankee Jan 2012 OP
Yes - and his DOJ suggested he challenge it. Richardo Jan 2012 #1
Not kcks Jan 2012 #2
Yes. comipinko Jan 2012 #3
Yes. But Bush didn't challenge it. nt msanthrope Jan 2012 #4
Yes gratuitous Jan 2012 #5
Funny thing. savalez Jan 2012 #7
Yes, during the last couple of weeks of Bush's presidency, if I recall correctly. Lone_Star_Dem Jan 2012 #6
Yup wryter2000 Jan 2012 #8
Dems blocking appointees had to do with the appointees. louis-t Jan 2012 #9

kcks

(106 posts)
2. Not
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:29 PM
Jan 2012

from what I have so far this is a first recess appointment with the Senate in session. If someone knows differently I would like to know when and who was appointed.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
5. Yes
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:34 PM
Jan 2012

But not quite the way it is being done now. The Republicans in this Congress have broken all previous records for holding up nominations for no reason. Some of the Bush nominations (like John Bolton) were held up for really good reasons - like the nominee wasn't qualified, was a colossal fuck-up, or would do real harm to the United States, its interests and reputation.

Obama's nominees have been held up basically to poke a Senatorial finger in his eye, and to throw sand into the governing machinery, not because of any lack of qualifications or anything else. Several judicial nominees, for example, were held up by various Republican nincompoops for no better reason than that they could. When the nominees finally came up for a vote, they sailed through with overwhelming majorities.

Back in the day, the Republicans whined about "the will of the people" and "up-or-down votes" on Bush nominees. That language is now null and void, and you won't hear a peep out of Senate Republicans about any of that nowadays. And for some strange reason, nobody in the liberal media seems all that concerned about asking the Republicans about their "that was then, this is now" situational ethic. But they are quite interested in Republican whining about a measly four recess appointments. It is a puzzlement, it is.

savalez

(3,517 posts)
7. Funny thing.
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:42 PM
Jan 2012

I did hear McConnell shamelessly parroting the "will of the people" thing about the recent recess appointments. As if he, McConnell himself, is not defying the will of the people by blocking an up or down vote in the first place. In other words, McConnell is the one defying the will of the people! The hypocrisy. The shamelessness. The same old Republican politician bullshit.

Lone_Star_Dem

(28,158 posts)
6. Yes, during the last couple of weeks of Bush's presidency, if I recall correctly.
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:40 PM
Jan 2012

However, all of Bush's 170ish(?) recess appointments were not made during a pro forma session. Which leaves the matter still unresolved.

wryter2000

(46,023 posts)
8. Yup
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:08 PM
Jan 2012

The thing that's different is that the D's did cooperate with him and only blocked his appointments for good reason. For example, John Bolton.

louis-t

(23,273 posts)
9. Dems blocking appointees had to do with the appointees.
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:41 PM
Jan 2012

Repukes blocking appointees has to do with scoring political points, trying to undermine the agency that the appointee will head, trying to hold the country hostage until they get some other demand satisfied..

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did the Senate delay GW B...