Was Bush justified in making John Bolton a recess appointment?

[nclib]

I say no.

Bush made this appointment (along with other recess appointments) simply because it was the only way he could get them through.

[Emsworth]

Bush made this appointment (along with other recess appointments) simply because it was the only way he could get them through.

He is not the only one to have done so.

This use of the recess appointment was a perfectly justified exercise of the President's check on the Senate.

[Gabu]

Well, given that it was a completely legal thing to do, I would say, yes, he was justified in doing it.

Now, the question of whether it was a good idea is an entirely different situation.

[Speed of Sound]

Well, given that it was a completely legal thing to do, I would say, yes, he was justified in doing it.

Now, the question of whether it was a good idea is an entirely different situation.

i will concur with Mr.Gabu

[??????????]

Clinton had something like 85 recess appointments and Reagan had something like 230.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't care that much about Bolton really. The guy's a nutjob but the fact is Bush wil lnever care about anything the UN or our allies think, and they'll rightly never take anyone appointed by Bush seriously. Just put up with him for now and once we get a Democrat in the White House sack his ass.

[Smash255]

Justified based on the law?  Yes, but justified based on him being qualified for the job?  No, not even close

[Sam Spade]

Bush made this appointment (along with other recess appointments) simply because it was the only way he could get them through.

He is not the only one to have done so.

This use of the recess appointment was a perfectly justified exercise of the President's check on the Senate.

What Emsworth said.

[AkSaber]

Clinton had something like 85 recess appointments and Reagan had something like 230.

I thought Clinton made like 140 of them.

[opebo]

Bush made this appointment (along with other recess appointments) simply because it was the only way he could get them through.

He is not the only one to have done so.

This use of the recess appointment was a perfectly justified exercise of the President's check on the Senate.

Alas our problem is runaway executive power, not Senatorial power.  Instituting a genuine confirmation requirement would be one good way to limit the imperial executive.

[bullmoose88]

Well, given that it was a completely legal thing to do, I would say, yes, he was justified in doing it.

Now, the question of whether it was a good idea is an entirely different situation.

^^

[??????????]

Clinton had something like 85 recess appointments and Reagan had something like 230.

I thought Clinton made like 140 of them.

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

Yep, you're right.

[WalterMitty]

I say no.

Bush made this appointment (along with other recess appointments) simply because it was the only way he could get them through.

only way he could get them through?

bolton had over 50 votes.  but oyur party decided that majority shouldnt rule.

bolton is a good man and a great choice.

[dazzleman]

I love the way it was perfectly OK when Clinton made recess appointments, against the wishes of the MAJORITY of the Senate, as in the Bill Lan Lee appointment to the civil rights position.

But when Bush appoints someone who was being blocked by a minority of the Senate, the same people scream bloody murder, and say it is not legitimate.

Read the constitution.  It is perfectly legitimate.  They claim they object because Bolton is not supportive enough of the UN.  Last I checked, the UN was a corrupt, anti-American organization that thinks Syria has more business being on the human rights commission than the United States.  Actually, put that way, the Democrats' opposition makes a lot more sense, since the UN closely resembles what has become of the Democratic party.

[skybridge]

Technically, no, what he did wasn't forbidden. I voted yes though because of the ignorance involved in the act.

[Giant Saguaro]

Yes. Constitutionally, there really isn't any question. The issues with the appointment that most liberals have are philosophical, in which case they shouldn't frame Bolton's appointment as having been an end run-around or some of the stuff that Ted has gone so far as to suggest, such as that the appointment was tyrannical or some word like that, which is beyond asinine.

Philosophically, I like Bolton as he is not likely at all to appease the UN and will better represent America's interests there than Europe's or someone else's.

[J. J.]

In our system the majority of the Senators, along with the President, make this determination.  Isn't that really what happened.

J. J.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In our system the majority of the Senators, along with the President, make this determination.  Isn't that really what happened.

J. J.

Bolton probably would have failed an up or down vote.

[AkSaber]

Clinton had something like 85 recess appointments and Reagan had something like 230.

I thought Clinton made like 140 of them.

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

Yep, you're right.

Muchas gracias.

[© tweed]

Yes

[The Vorlon]

If this had been an appointment to something important, say the ambasador to Micronesia or perhaps Dhekelia I could see all the fuss...

But seriously, this is the United Nations.

A skilled US Ambasador means the motion condeming the US as a running dog capitalist imperialist rogue nation passes 143 to 32 with 21 abstentions.

If we send Bozo the clown the same motion passes 151 to 31 with 14 abstentions.

Syria is still chair of the Human rights Commission.  Cuba still leads the "non-aligned" movement, and North Korea and Iran are still members in Good Standing.

It's not like this actually matters...

[MODU]

You can say that again.