- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Decades ago the Senate was simply interested in answering one (1) important question: is the nominee qualified to do the job? Senate hearings took little time with almost no fanfare. Today the question of qualifications is almost forgotten. It may depend upon whether the nominee prefers blue or green.
You say the Senate "used." My opinion is that the Senate "abused." If the Senate wishes to have nominees appear before them when they are in session perhaps they who have the power in their own home can get their crap together and look at the nominee's qualifications instead of his politics. This goes for Democrats and Republicans.
In the end let us face the reality that whomever the sitting President is - HE WON! In 1992 this was Pres Clinton, in 2000 it was Pres Bush, and in 2012 it is Pres Obama. Naturally their appointees are going to lean their way. I don't disagree with keeping out criminals, incompetents, or severe extremists but the process itself has become very polarized to the point of grinding to a halt.
In the end DragonGunner may have it right: their infighting may(?) be the best thing for us. That doesn't change my mind that the Senate is abusing its power[SIZE=3] (IN THIS CASE!)
So in your reckoning if the president doesn't like the way the Senate operates, that justifies leaving positions vacant until the Senate is out of session in order to make a recess appointment? You are generous in spreading the criticism, but why it is that a truly conservative GOP appointee doesn't stand a chance, but Obama sailed Kagan through the Senate with little complaint about the fact she had NEVER presided over a trial? It seems that this has been a very one-sided affair for most of my lifetime. I have a problem with allowing one side to run roughshod over the opposition and Constitution both, but when the other tries it screaming "STOP! RULES!!!!"