And the meltdown over the recess appointment continues:
“It’s sad that even while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress in appointing our representative to the United Nations.” — Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg
“The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. … It’s a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton’s credibility at the U.N.” — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
Others who deviously abused their power and operated under a cloak of secrecy include the following:
President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1961, getting around opposition from Southern senators. Their resistance had weakened by the following September, and the Senate approved him 54-16.
President Dwight Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953) and Associate Justices William Brennan (1956) and Potter Stewart (1958). Each later received Senate confirmation.
President George Washington appointed John Rutledge of South Carolina as chief justice during a 1795 recess. The Senate rejected the nomination and his appointment expired after he served one term.
Meanwhile, the UN seems unfazed:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and diplomats said that they looked forward to working with John Bolton, the new US envoy appointed despite past anti-UN rhetoric, as the world body considers crucial reforms.
“We look forward to working with him,” Annan told reporters. “We will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reforms.”
US President George W. Bush made the appointment Monday, bypassing the Senate after charges Bolton would hurt US credibility had stalled his nomination.
“I think it is the president’s prerogative and he has decided to appoint him through this process to come and represent him. And from where I stand, we will work with him as a representative of the president and government,” Annan told reporters.
“We will work with him as we worked with other American permanent representatives,” he added.
These over-reactions are beyond absurd.
*** Update ***
Look- what is going on now IS absurd. The Democrats say they only opposed Bolton because they wanted documents, but there is little in the way of evidence to convince me that they would have given up the filibuster if they got all the documents. This is not a new strategy, you know…
Second, the Democrats filibustered him. Bush went around them. They are just mad. But it is a little absurd to take them at face value when they moan about Bolton being damaged goods, when they are the ones who have been freaking out about him from day one. And the latest little soundbites I have been hearing are just as silly. Basically, they are now suggesting that Bolton would have lost on an up or down vote, which, of course, begs the question:
“WHY THE BLEEP DID YOU NOT LET THEM VOTE ON HIM?”
If he couldn’t get confirmed, then why not vote on him? Because the issue is more important, and he would have been confirmed. Thus, the rush to the microphones.
Suggesting he wouldn’t have been confirmed in an up-or-down vote is just the latest attempt to damage Bolton, so they can then run around and claim he is too damaged to be the Ambassador. And the circular bullshit continues, as Goldstein noted earlier.
And what makes this even dumber is that I don’t really care about Bolton, I hate looking at that monstrosity on his lip, and I really don’t think any one man can change the UN. But the left-wing freakout on this is too funny not to note.