Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
September 7, 2007
POLITICS/LAW: Because He's The President And You Are Not, That's Why

Senator Webb wants to know why Bush nominated an attorney who wasn't on a list submitted by Webb for the Fourth Circuit.

Elections=>Consequences.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:27 PM | Law 2006-08 • | Politics 2007 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Yes, it does.

So that is why there be no problem if Webb doesn't return his Blue Slip, and the nominee gets held up... Right? That'll be the reaction from people, that elections have consequences, not attacking Democrats for holding up the process.

Right?

Posted by: Dave at September 7, 2007 12:57 PM

You assume that a single senator should have exclusive veto power. The president appoints judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, not each individual Senator.

Posted by: The Crank at September 7, 2007 1:00 PM

Lets see: Warner is retiring and Webb is of the other party. I don't see why Bush should care what either says.

Posted by: Steven Andrew Miller at September 7, 2007 1:31 PM

9-11 changed everything? Or, IOKIYAR?

Home state Senators have ALWAYS had a say in these matters. Until Bush, that is. Webb's not out of line, Bush is.

And while, he CAN do this, it doesn't mean it's right.

And way to pretend that this is just Webb, when in fact he and Republican Senator Warner prepared the list, and both are upset.

I can only imagine the uproar when President Hillary tries the exact same stuff as Bush.

Posted by: Mr. Furious at September 7, 2007 1:31 PM

I hope the Secret Service is aware of Webb's anger. Given his history, an expressed desire to physically attack the president, an senior aide caught smuggling weapons into restricted Capital Hill areas, he is a clear and present danger!

Posted by: abe at September 7, 2007 2:16 PM

I can only imagine the uproar when President Hillary tries the exact same stuff as Bush.

It would be just as misguided and silly as this uproar is. Senatorial courtesy might be an important part of the non-constitutional tradition in judge slection, but it's just that - a tradition. Ultimately the Constitution leaves the selection in the President's hands, and his is the only opinion that matters.

Posted by: paul zummo at September 7, 2007 2:46 PM

Ultimately the Constitution leaves the selection in the President's hands, and HERS is the only opinion that matters.

Get back to me in two years...

Posted by: Mr. Furious at September 7, 2007 4:29 PM

Get back to me in two years...

Will do, Mr. Furious. Som of us actually have principles.

Of course, we can always avoid the presidency of Mme. Hillary, though the first step would be not to nominate the guy whose nomination will destroy the Republican party (Rudy), but that's another debate.

Posted by: paul zummo at September 7, 2007 4:38 PM

Furious - Webb's the one whining about it.

Anyway, I will continue to believe that the Senate should give an up/down vote to a D president's nominees. It doesn't mean you can't criticize them, or that the Senate can't hold up a nomination temporarily to do appropriate fact-finding, or that you can't in extreme cases vote people down, but you shouldn't just stuff nominations in the circular file without the input of all 100 Senators.

Posted by: The Crank at September 7, 2007 4:57 PM

I assume nothing about it - I'm pointing out that the Senate has documented procedures, including the blue slip given to the Judicial committee(which isn't a veto, just used for consideration). And since the Senate has traditions - elections have consequences. Nothing wrong there, as far as I can see. The Constitution only specifies that the Senate shall Advise and Consent - nothing about how they go about getting to that point.

If I'm not wrong, the blue slip procedure predates the 17th amendment, back when Governors were much more vulnerable to judges in their state.

If it's any comfort - I believe that the holdup of judicial nominees, both now and for the past 10(20?) years is about as close to the Senate abandoning their responsibilities as it comes.

Webb's not whining - he's saying that the administration is picking a fight, and it's not going to happen.

Posted by: Dave at September 7, 2007 6:05 PM

I'd assume that if Webb is upset, it's probably because he is not getting some deference that, while not constitutionally mandated, has generally been given in the past. It's Bush's prerogative as President to change those kind of rules, but I'm sure the Republicans will also bitch and moan if a future Democratic President maintains Bush's precedent. In a perfect world, both sides would decide what the rules are, but this is politics, and everyone's a hypocrite when it suits their needs.

Posted by: Jerry at September 7, 2007 10:39 PM

Paul--

Hillary v Rudy is pretty much a jump ball as far as I am concerned, people from each base will stay away in droves and/or be motivated for blocking vote.

As to some of us having principles, I am not saying Hillary should follow Bush's lead. In fact I don;t think any of the Dems will—but I could be wrong. And if I am I will lay into them to. I don;t like the out of balance power of the Executive Branch, and not just because I don't like Bush...

Posted by: Mr Furious at September 8, 2007 11:53 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg