Bush may sidestep Congress on Bolton for U.N.

[© tweed]

Have you not read Bush's comments on the man?  Obviously Bush went out of way to get the guy he wanted, so obviously Bush believes they are both on the same page.

He can't find someone who is in line with his views that doesn't have such a big paper trail and congressional opposition to his appointment?  I have trouble believing this, and I think Bush is trying so hard to make sure Bolton gets in to spite Congress, and especially the congressional Republicans who oppose Bolton (I don't know any off hand but I'm sure they exist if there's such a big battle.)

[YRABNNRM]

Have you not read Bush's comments on the man?  Obviously Bush went out of way to get the guy he wanted, so obviously Bush believes they are both on the same page.

He can't find someone who is in line with his views that doesn't have such a big paper trail and congressional opposition to his appointment?  I have trouble believing this, and I think Bush is trying so hard to make sure Bolton gets in to spite Congress, and especially the congressional Republicans who oppose Bolton (I don't know any off hand but I'm sure they exist if there's such a big battle.)

Exactly. Tweed...we're actually agreeing...this is getting weird...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He can't find someone who is in line with his views that doesn't have such a big paper trail and congressional opposition to his appointment? 

Bolton is very hard-line, which obviously Bush feels fits into this administrations plans for the next 3 1/2 years.

[A18]

The Senate has enough votes to confirm him, so they're not being 'spited.' The filibustering hackjobs are being spited, yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Senate has enough votes to confirm him, so they're not being 'spited.' The filibustering hackjobs are being spited, yes.

That's not a given. Republican Senators had been critical of him. Bush just wanted to avoid further hearings. Bush had refused to cooperate with Congress with the answers they wanted. The Democrats were not obstructing for the heck of it, they were stopping a very dangerous and unethical man who refused to answer certain questions. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for every whackjob that Bush appoints and even members of his own party oppose.

[© tweed]

He can't find someone who is in line with his views that doesn't have such a big paper trail and congressional opposition to his appointment?

Bolton is very hard-line, which obviously Bush feels fits into this administrations plans for the next 3 1/2 years.

But he could no doubt find a somebody who would take exactly the same course of action and be confirmed easily.  That's why I say it's more of a personal issue with Bush not wanting to lose to congress than Bolton being irreplaceable.

[MODU]

The Democrats were not obstructing for the heck of it, they were stopping a very dangerous and unethical man who refused to answer certain questions.

Dangerous?  hahaha . . . "Look out folks, he's stroking his mustache.  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But he could no doubt find a somebody who would take exactly the same course of action and be confirmed easily.  That's why I say it's more of a personal issue with Bush not wanting to lose to congress than Bolton being irreplaceable.

Dude, wake up!  This country is at war and the outcome is not a given.  Yet, the Dems see Bush as more of a threat than our enemies!

The Dems in the Senate wouldn't even allow a vote on Bolton.  Now, if the Dems want to try to prove Bolton was unacceptable to the Senate, then they can allow an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as the August recess is over.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats were not obstructing for the heck of it, they were stopping a very dangerous and unethical man who refused to answer certain questions.

Dangerous?  hahaha . . . "Look out folks, he's stroking his mustache.  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!"

So you're telling me that someone involved in the Iran Contra scandal and Plame scandal who supports attacking random countries for no reasons, and wants the UN building destroyed isn't dangerous?

[The Duke]

All Bush has needed to do for a vote is hand over some documents.  Since he is so scared of making the documents public & to let the senate  see them, he is going to pull this crap??  Real Nice.  Things could get real ugly if he pulls this

There is no reason to ask for these documents except to delay the vote.  Why should the White House cave in to such unjustifiable demands?

What the hell is it about Bolton that Bush likes so much?

I like Bolton a great deal.

Look into the Proliferation Security Initiative to get an idea of what an effective Arms Control Ambassador Bolton was.  Probably the best to hold that post in the Post-Cold War period.

I was thrilled when Bush chose Bolton, I'd want no one else at the UN.

What the hell is it about Bolton that Bush likes so much?

Probably due to ideology.  Bush thinks the UN needs urgent reform, so he's chosen someone who is willing to express himself without stumbling over all the diplomatic speak.

But I mean this is the best guy he could find for that? I don't think his record is that strong anyway.

Not sure.  Most people who move up within any Administration tend to be more calm and "political,"  and therefore lack the teeth which might be needed.  Personally, I think Bremmer would have been a good choice, especially with the respect he built with the international community while controlling Iraq before the transition of power.

I have said many times, if George Bush ever brings back Bremer I'd support his impeachment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But he could no doubt find a somebody who would take exactly the same course of action and be confirmed easily.  That's why I say it's more of a personal issue with Bush not wanting to lose to congress than Bolton being irreplaceable.

Dude, wake up!  This country is at war and the outcome is not a given.  Yet, the Dems see Bush as more of a threat than our enemies!

The Dems in the Senate wouldn't even allow a vote on Bolton.  Now, if the Dems want to try to prove Bolton was unacceptable to the Senate, then they can allow an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as the August recess is over.

The man who ignored the August 6th, 2001 memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" is a far bigger threat to America than the man he ignored.

[© tweed]

But he could no doubt find a somebody who would take exactly the same course of action and be confirmed easily.  That's why I say it's more of a personal issue with Bush not wanting to lose to congress than Bolton being irreplaceable.

Dude, wake up!  This country is at war and the outcome is not a given.  Yet, the Dems see Bush as more of a threat than our enemies!

The Dems in the Senate wouldn't even allow a vote on Bolton.  Now, if the Dems want to try to prove Bolton was unacceptable to the Senate, then they can allow an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as the August recess is over.

So, you believe Bolton is irreplaceable and the course of action he would take could not be ducplicated by any other individual, an individual who likely could easily be confirmed, and you also believe that nominating Bolton is crucial to victory in the war on terror.

[MODU]

The Democrats were not obstructing for the heck of it, they were stopping a very dangerous and unethical man who refused to answer certain questions.

Dangerous?  hahaha . . . "Look out folks, he's stroking his mustache.  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!"

So you're telling me that someone involved in the Iran Contra scandal and Plame scandal who supports attacking random countries for no reasons, and wants the UN building destroyed isn't dangerous?

Hmmm . . . Reagan was involved with Iran Contra, yet he wasn't dangerous.  I want the UN building destroyed (and built with one not consisting of asbestos) as well as the UN being reformed . . . so I'm dangerous too?  Or how about many of your wild accusations?  Are you dangerous?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, you believe Bolton is irreplaceable and the course of action he would take could not be ducplicated by any other individual, an individual who likely could easily be confirmed, and you also believe that nominating Bolton is crucial to victory in the war on terror.

I believe Bolton's approach is VERY crucial to victory in the war on terror.  And Bush does not need to go looking for another nominee.  Bush has found the man he wants and if a majority of the republic doesn't agree with it, then a majority of the republic's elected Senators can vote to reject his nominee.

Simple, end of story.

[© tweed]

Bolton would have an up-down vote if the documents asked for were released.  These are not being released, presumably, becuase they leave a paper trail more damaging to Bolton than his "UN does not exist" quote.  Dems in the senate realize this, and feel (at least outwardly) that without those documents a fair vote cannot be achieved with the current knowledge of Bolton at hand.

The elected Senators of the Republic are exercising their right to filibuster.  that's their motion, and it's within the law.  I like Chafee's quote on the matter.  I still believe the appointment of Bolton is unnecessary and Bush is going through with this to show the Congress that who he chooses gets in.  That is more of a motive to Bush than is a belief that Bolton is essential to international affairs.

[A18]

And the president of the republic is exercising his right to recess appointments.

[© tweed]

And the president of the republic is exercising his right to recess appointments.

I'm not challenging that, I'm somewhat challenging the "and if a majority of the republic doesn't agree with it, then a majority of the republic's elected Senators can vote to reject his nominee" statement by JMF.  That isn't the only option.

[MODU]

Bolton would have an up-down vote if the documents asked for were released. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that the vote would have occurred before recess even if the documents were released.  Bolton was one of the best/last chances the Democrats had in order to make a stand against Bush, and the document issue was just a way the could excuse their refusal to allow the vote.

[© tweed]

Bolton would have an up-down vote if the documents asked for were released. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that the vote would have occurred before recess even if the documents were released.  Bolton was one of the best/last chances the Democrats had in order to make a stand against Bush, and the document issue was just a way the could excuse their refusal to allow the vote.

I doubt the Dems would refuse to vote after they got what they publically asked for.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I still believe the appointment of Bolton is unnecessary and Bush is going through with this to show the Congress that who he chooses gets in.  That is more of a motive to Bush than is a belief that Bolton is essential to international affairs.

Yeah, that's right, it is all a game to rub the Dems face in the mud of their defeats.  In fact, the whole war is about rubbing the Dems face in the mud.

...did it ever occur to you that the Dems are jealous of Bush being the one making history in this very crucial time period of this country, and that is why they oppose, quietly deep down if not publically, every action Bush makes in the war?

[Giant Saguaro]

See, I think Bolton's "character" or whatever choice of words one wants to use is just the easiest avenue of attack for the Dems. Anyone else, I think, ideologically similar would be blocked, the reasoning would just be different. He's extremely hawkish. If it's personally him they won't accept, fine - and they would accept another like him ideologically, fine. But I don't think that's the case. The Dems want someone much, much more agreeable to the UN status quo.

Now if he's rejected, he's rejected. Find someone less controversial, but don't back down.

[MODU]

Bolton would have an up-down vote if the documents asked for were released. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that the vote would have occurred before recess even if the documents were released.  Bolton was one of the best/last chances the Democrats had in order to make a stand against Bush, and the document issue was just a way the could excuse their refusal to allow the vote.

I doubt the Dems would refuse to vote after they got what they publically asked for.

I do.  And they would be right in doing so.  The problem is, they were fishing for something they could sink their teeth into, and most of the issues they had discussed were trivial, such as "he's tough on his subordinates."  If they had received the documents, they would have said "we need more time," or "we need more documents on this issue," prolonging the process into the recess, where Bush would have done what he did today anyway.

[© tweed]

JMF I hope you can see how Bolton is a controversial nomination.  There would be little grounds to oppose a guy like Roberts when he gets voted on, and few will.  But Bolton is a man with a long paper trail of questionable comments and it makes sense that people would oppose those views.

[Snowe08]

As an originalist, something about this strikes me as slightly unsettling, but it's not the same thing that's probably troubling democrats. I don't have strong views one way or the other regarding John Bolton, in any capacity; but the process concerns me somewhat.

I had to go back and check the text more specifically, but something strikes me as being a little off here. The clause (Art.II §2 Cl.3) says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's troubling me is that word "session". In current usage, of course, each Congress is comprised of two sessions - hence why the Senate's website divides votes for each Congress into first and second sessions. Thus a modern reading of the clause effectively means that a recess appointment can span an entire Congress - two years!

I can't support this feeling without doing a little more research, but this seems contrary to the intent of the Framers, insofar as it dramatically increases the power of the Executive. A modern reading of the clause effectively says that a President may ignore the second Senate of his Presidency. I say "a modern reading", of course, but I am an originalist; I do not accept that the Constitution's meaning necessarily evolves with our language. It means today what it meant when it was adopted. That constitutional knife is double-sided - and damned sharp! We need an essay on the original understanding of the recess clause; I will not try to write it here, but I will offer an outline of what it might contain. (Such an essay apparently already exists! The Right Coast's Mike Rappaport, of the University of San Diego School of Law, wrote such an article last year, The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause. Hat tip to Jeremy at ChargingRINO).

In earlier times, state legislatures and the Continental Congress were not in session throughout the year, due to (I suspect) a combination of a paucity of business and (particularly in the case of the Continental Congress, the sheer physical demands of assembling the body in one place for any period of time. IIRC, during (and for a long time after) the revolutionary war, the Continental Congress was homeless and nomadic, further hampering the business of assembling it and transacting business.

The Framers must have been aware of these concerns, and the chaos they brought to any attempt at national government. They included in the Constitution the explicit instruction that there would be a single, official seat of government, possibly to remedy the second point I raised above. But they also included a clause that said that when Congress was not readily available to debate and confirm (or deny) executive appointments, the President should have the authority to fill those vacancies in the interim. It stands to reason that there was a strong presumption that an office which is necessary is an office which should be filled. The mechanism, it seems to me, was foreseen to operate thusly: if the Congress wasn't in session, the President makes a recess appointment. Once Congress returns, it either votes to sustain that appointment, thus making it official - or it does not, the President therefore nominates someone else, and the process repeats until Senate confirmation. At midnight on the day following the end of the session of Congress, the person in the office filled by recess appointment will be a person who has been confirmed by Congress.

So that's a very, very ad hoc description of how I think the clause might have originated, and how that system would therefore have been understood to operate. I would want to do a lot more reasearch before saying any of this definitively, specifically, into actual pre-1787 American legislative practise, with a particular focus on the Continental Congress and post-1776 state constitutional practise, and also look at the first hundred years of the recess appointment's use, just to start with. However, with those qualifications in mind, it seems to me that we need to discard our current understanding of "sessions" of Congress. It seems to me that the President can ONLY use the recess power when the Congress is not in session; therefore, in any situation where the President has the power to fill a vacancy via recess power, the Congress' SESSION has ended. In other words, the meaning of "session" in the legislative calendar should not necessarily be seen as the same thing as a §2 Cl.3 session. Put more bluntly: if the President has the power to make a recess appointment during a weekend, the appointment expires at 11:59:59 the following Friday.


"He who lives by the ipse dixit dies by the ipse dixit", as Scalia once wrote (487 U.S. at 726); and I am chained by my interpretative philosophy. Although originalism is too often castigated as an excuse for conservatism, in my view - admittedly, not an unbiased one - it is no such thing. The fact that an originalist reading of the constitution, in my view, militated against the nuclear option, and seems to militate against the ongoing abuse of the recess appointment power (I say ongoing, because President Clinton used it 140 times; see Henry B. Hogue, CRS Report for Congress: Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions), should perhaps indicate - for better or worse - how false this conflation is.

This view, of course, will do nothing to improve my standing in GOP circles, but my loyalty is to the Constitution first, and the party second. This decision by the President is not entirely unexpected (Democrats are already setting the stage for the same "document demand filibuster" against John Roberts as was used to torpedo Bolton; it thus stands to reason that the President should wish to send a "not so fast, speedy" signal to Sen. Reid), but I must again respectfully dissent from the party line.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF I hope you can see how Bolton is a controversial nomination.  There would be little grounds to oppose a guy like Roberts when he gets voted on, and few will.  But Bolton is a man with a long paper trail of questionable comments and it makes sense that people would oppose those views.

Sure, he is controversial.  He wants to:

1) take a hard line with NKorea
2) take a hard line with Iran
3) tell the UN to go jump in a lake

The Dems rather have the UN running things because deep down they don't like the traditional American way of life...and that is why they oppose Bolton.  

The opposition to Bolton's personality is simply a red herring.