Confirmation hearings
I'm fed up with these people. Not that I believe John Bolton is the best person for the job, but how long can this thing drag on? I believe every nominee should get an up or down vote...that includes in the committees. The Republicans try to make excuses for Clinton's nominees who never made it out of committee as if that isn't obstructionist.
I believe the best thing for the nomination process is to look at the nominee and see if they based their decisions on the law or tried to support their decision with something else. In general, unless there are extenuating circumstances, all nominee approvals should be based on past performance and ABA rating. They should be discussed and reviewed in depth in the committee and then voted on and passed to the full Senate. After careful review they should ALL be voted on.
Same with appointments like Bolton's. In his case he seems like the wrong man for the job. But the President appointed him and the committee passed him. Now in a perfect world he would be voted down. You don't appoint the proverbial bull to run the china shop. But politics is involved and the President still has enough political capital to get him approved. The Democrats should stop trying to stall the vote and just get it over with. You pick the battles you can win and pass on those you can't.
I believe the best thing for the nomination process is to look at the nominee and see if they based their decisions on the law or tried to support their decision with something else. In general, unless there are extenuating circumstances, all nominee approvals should be based on past performance and ABA rating. They should be discussed and reviewed in depth in the committee and then voted on and passed to the full Senate. After careful review they should ALL be voted on.
Same with appointments like Bolton's. In his case he seems like the wrong man for the job. But the President appointed him and the committee passed him. Now in a perfect world he would be voted down. You don't appoint the proverbial bull to run the china shop. But politics is involved and the President still has enough political capital to get him approved. The Democrats should stop trying to stall the vote and just get it over with. You pick the battles you can win and pass on those you can't.
posted by Jdeer76 at
3:53 PM
3 Comments:
Normally I'd be with you, but I do think that using the tools that are available to ask questions that the President would rather not have to answer is a purposeful way giving the minority a voice. I'm not so idealistic to think that's always the way it will work, but in this case, asking to see some more of Bolton's records in terms of how he used (or potentially abused) his leadership position is valid. The fact that the committee passed him along but without a recommendation shows that this is an exceptional circumstance that should at least get a full airing out.
By
Anonymous, at 2:37 PM
Personally, I agree he should not be nominated. However, I believe most of the information that is known about him is enough to make any decision. And the argument can be made that although the minority should have a voice, they should not be able to block a vote indefinetly. They are the MINORITY after all and lost the election. If the Democrats had won they certainly wouldn't be trying to support the minority's right to have a voice.
By
Jdeer76, at 6:55 PM
Well technically, they DON'T have the power to block a vote indefinitely. Hence all the bluster around the "nuclear option" over the last few weeks. I understand your point, but I don't see the request for more information before the vote as being outrageously partisan, given the reluctance of even a number of Republican congressmen to Bolton.
By
Anonymous, at 9:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home