I don't get it. Why are Republicans trying to exempt bureaucrats from Senate confirmation?
One would think it’s important that federal officials who are responsible for telling Congressmen what documents they can or can't review should be first approved with the “advice and consent" of the Senate.
Umm, no... One would think federal officials COULD NOT tell Congressmen what documents they can or can't review.
Looked it up. S679 is
S.679 - Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011
3/30/2011--Introduced.Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 - Exempts certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch from the requirement of Senate confirmation (advice and consent). Establishes the Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations to:
(1) study the streamlining of paperwork required for executive nominations, and
(2) conduct a review of the impact of background investigation requirements on the appointments process.
Guess this is letting Obama get his, so the Repubs can get theirs when they get their own president? I don't think this passes the smell test.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
FWIW, I don't seethe Senate—even a liberal Senate—voluntarily giving up its oversight powers. Yes, this bill is scary, but I don't think it will pass, and even in the even that it did pass, I don't think it would survive a constitutional challenge. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Senate has enjoyed this power for a long time, and I don't believe they'll willingly walk away from it. I dont think it will survive a constitutional challenge because I don't believe that the Senate can sign away its constitutional powers without actually amending the Constitution.
They can try to delegate their authority, but the next Congress that comes along is just as likely to take it back.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Are you saying that the Director of the Bureau of ATF would fall under "certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch"?
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
Are you saying that the Director of the Bureau of ATF would fall under "certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch"?
Possibly. Even so, the next president would fire his butt in a heartbeat and hire his own guy. This is why even Rick Perry is a preferable president to Obama and should get our votes if he winds up getting the nomination. I'm not a Perry guy. He's a little too oily for me, but he is orders of magnitude better than what we've got.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Are you saying that the Director of the Bureau of ATF would fall under "certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch"?
Possibly. Even so, the next president would fire his butt in a heartbeat and hire his own guy. This is whyeven Rick Perry is a preferable president to Obama and should get our votes if he winds up getting the nomination. I'm not a Perry guy. He's a little too oily for me, but he is orders of magnitude better than what we've got.
Well, it's one reason, but not the only one. I would say SCOTUS appointments would trumph BAFTE appointments, at least in the large picture.
And even "oily" politicians beat those covered in even less desirable substances!
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
Are you saying that the Director of the Bureau of ATF would fall under "certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch"?
Possibly. Even so, the next president would fire his butt in a heartbeat and hire his own guy. This is whyeven Rick Perry is a preferable president to Obama and should get our votes if he winds up getting the nomination. I'm not a Perry guy. He's a little too oily for me, but he is orders of magnitude better than what we've got.
Well, it's one reason, but not the only one. I would say SCOTUS appointments would trumph BAFTE appointments, at least in the large picture.
And even "oily" politicians beat those covered in even less desirable substances!
I agree. I tend to be an ideological purist during primaries, but then I get behind the party choice during the general elections. The reason is that all the ideological purity in the world isn't worth a cup of warm spit if you lose the election, and the other fellow who wins is the representation of his side's ideological purity. In the real world, that means losing to Obama. Again. This country can't afford that. I would rather vote for Pepie La Pew if he might beat Obama. I'd vote for Roger Rabbit, Yogi Bear, the Dalai Lama, Red Buttons, the Mr. Clean guy, or that sordid cockroach in the Orkin Exterminators ads if I thought any of them could beat Obama. How about Netenyahu? He wasn't born here, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Are you saying that the Director of the Bureau of ATF would fall under "certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch"?
Possibly. Even so, the next president would fire his butt in a heartbeat and hire his own guy. This is whyeven Rick Perry is a preferable president to Obama and should get our votes if he winds up getting the nomination. I'm not a Perry guy. He's a little too oily for me, but he is orders of magnitude better than what we've got.
Well, it's one reason, but not the only one. I would say SCOTUS appointments would trumph BAFTE appointments, at least in the large picture.
And even "oily" politicians beat those covered in even less desirable substances!
I agree. I tend to be an ideological purist during primaries, but then I get behind the party choice during the general elections. The reason is that all the ideological purity in the world isn't worth a cup of warm spit if you lose the election, and the other fellow who wins is the representation of his side's ideological purity. In the real world, that means losing to Obama. Again. This country can't afford that. I would rather vote for Pepie La Pew if he might beat Obama. I'd vote for Roger Rabbit, Yogi Bear, the Dalai Lama, Red Buttons, the Mr. Clean guy, or that sordid cockroach in the Orkin Exterminators ads if I thought any of them could beat Obama. How about Netenyahu? He wasn't born here, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
He was last seen with a puzzled look on his face, attempting to order a pizza!
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I would rather vote for Pepie La Pew if he might beat Obama. I'd vote for Roger Rabbit, Yogi Bear, the Dalai Lama, Red Buttons, the Mr. Clean guy, or that sordid cockroach in the Orkin Exterminators ads if I thought any of them could beat Obama. How about Netenyahu? He wasn't born here, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
The Annoyed Man wrote:
I agree. I tend to be an ideological purist during primaries, but then I get behind the party choice during the general elections.
The Annoyed Man wrote:
I agree. I tend to be an ideological purist during primaries, but then I get behind the party choice during the general elections.
Give my regards to President McCain!
He wouldn't have been ideal and I did not vote for him in the primary, but he would have been a lot better than what we got. Part of what got Obama elected was fringe candidates splitting off some of the ideologically purist conservative vote. Don't blame me. I voted for McCain in the general, and I do not regret my vote. If I had voted in the general for a fringe candidate, I personally could not say that today. YMMV.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Are you saying that the Director of the Bureau of ATF would fall under "certain presidential appointments to cabinet-level agencies, independent commissions, and boards in the executive branch"?
Possibly. Even so, the next president would fire his butt in a heartbeat and hire his own guy. This is whyeven Rick Perry is a preferable president to Obama and should get our votes if he winds up getting the nomination. I'm not a Perry guy. He's a little too oily for me, but he is orders of magnitude better than what we've got.
Well, it's one reason, but not the only one. I would say SCOTUS appointments would trumph BAFTE appointments, at least in the large picture.
And even "oily" politicians beat those covered in even less desirable substances!
I agree. I tend to be an ideological purist during primaries, but then I get behind the party choice during the general elections. The reason is that all the ideological purity in the world isn't worth a cup of warm spit if you lose the election, and the other fellow who wins is the representation of his side's ideological purity. In the real world, that means losing to Obama. Again. This country can't afford that. I would rather vote for Pepie La Pew if he might beat Obama. I'd vote for Roger Rabbit, Yogi Bear, the Dalai Lama, Red Buttons, the Mr. Clean guy, or that sordid cockroach in the Orkin Exterminators ads if I thought any of them could beat Obama. How about Netenyahu? He wasn't born here, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Once again, I agree with you about getting behind WHOEVER gets the nomination. It was put to me that would you rather vote for the nominee of your party, who you agree with 75% of the time, or for someone you agree with 10% of the time or less, just because you didn't agree with the nominee of your party 100% of the time? Seems like an obvious choice. Plus, if it IS your party's guy (or gal), and you have Congress as well, things will hopefully tend in the direction you would like them to go, anyway. EVERY VOTE MATTERS!
The Annoyed Man wrote:Part of what got Obama elected was fringe candidates splitting off some of the ideologically purist conservative vote. Don't blame me.
Obama got elected because:
1. Too many Americans are easily fooled by smooth rhetoric and empty promises. They mistake bad proposals for "progress".... and
2. Because America saw a well-educated, well-spoken black man that everyone else seemed to be ready to vote for (groupthink). Voting for Obama gave them the feeling that they could hold their chests out proudly and declare that they were not a racist because they voted for a black man.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
