http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735529.stm
US President George W Bush has formally appointed John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, without waiting for approval from the Senate.
Mr Bush said Democrats had forced him to bypass Congress by using "shameful delaying tactics" to prevent a vote.
"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Mr Bush said.
"The US Senate held thorough confirmation hearings, and a majority of US senators believe he is the right man for the job," Mr Bush said.
"Yet, because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."
His appointment had been strongly opposed by many Democrats, who cited allegations that Mr Bolton was a "serial bully" who intimidated junior members of staff.
They expressed concern he lacked the personal temperament for the UN job, following his combative criticism of the body. He is also considered to be a leading hawk on Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
Democratic Senator John Kerry, who fought for the presidency last year, acknowledged Mr Bush's constitutional right to make the appointment but condemned the move as the "wrong decision".
'Well qualified'
However, Republican Senator John Cornyn defended the president for using his authority to "to end the obstruction against John Bolton", whom he described as "exceptionally well qualified".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735529.stm
Is this the way Democrats and Republicans should go ahead to fill the US's most important diplomatic jobs ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYup, young George is certainly asserting his stupidity here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735529.stm
US President George W Bush has formally appointed John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, without waiting for approval from the Senate.
Mr Bush said Democrats had forced him to bypass Congress by using "shameful delaying tactics" to prevent a vote.
"This post is too important to leave va ...[text shortened]... way Democrats and Republicans should go ahead to fill the US's most important diplomatic jobs ?
Originally posted by sasquatch672The fact is that the courts ARE subject to review by Congress... Congress creates the courts, and can dismantle or shut down any court they choose, at any time... no one in Congress has the guts to do that, but it would be well within their power...
... But his seeming willingness to restore the judical branch to a subservient role to Congress and especially the executive branch makes me nervous... Most of the time, it would seem that a constructionist justice would be a good thing, but the Founding Fathers intended the Supreme Court to fill a critical checks and balances role. It must not subjug ...[text shortened]... in? Let's call it, "Constructionist jurism or a Stout Court System". Maybe a new thread.
when people ask, what's the check and balance to the courts, the answer is Congress..or at least, it's supposed to be... Congress is to gutless to do anything about runaway courts, but they could if they wanted to.
The intent of the Founders was to make the courts the LEAST 'powerful' branch of government...that's why the courts are only supposed to interpret the law, not write them... of course today, activist judges are constantly making law every time you turn around...congress could stop that, but they don't have the guts to do so.
Senator Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) even referred to the ability of the Supreme Court to 'make law' during his press conference held after the nomination of Roberts. This is how the libs see the courts. The look for activist judges to make laws that they couldn't pass at the ballot box in a million years.
e.g. in 2000, the whole reason the Florida Supreme Court was overturned by the US Supreme Court was because they tried to re-write the election laws after the election had taken place. Katherine Harris was required BY LAW to certify the election results by a certain date, which she did. The FL supreme court decided that they would change the law as it was written because their guy lost...Harris did exactly what the law required, and the FL Court 'ruled' that they didn't like that law... but it's not their job to change the rules after the election was held... And seven US Supreme Court justices said just that... (it was NOT, as a lot of people think, a 5-4 vote in favor of Bush, it was 7-2... Seven US S.Court judges said that what the FL supreme court did was illegal. Two of them, however, thought that the (recount) deadline could have been extended, but that it was up to the legislature to do that... that's where Democrats claim it was only 5-4, but it was 7-2 that the FL Supreme Court violated the law... that's the same margin as Roe v Wade, btw).
Originally posted by ivanhoeDemocrats don't get to pick the representative...they lost the election...
...Is this the way Democrats and Republicans should go ahead to fill the US's most important diplomatic jobs ?
It's also unbelievable that the left is upset at Bolton because he yelled at a subordinate... for crying out loud, who out there wouldn't LOVE a chance to yell at a government employee? It's about time someone came along who expected a little production out of government employees...
The U.N. is obviously more afraid of Bolton than they are of the terrorists...
Rush Limbaugh used to play video clips on his TV show of Bill Clinton yelling at staff members all the time... scared the s**t out of 'em... Clinton had one hell of a temper, as did Hillary... those clips never made the network news, however...
If Kofi Anan is opposed to Bolton, that means Bolton is good for the United States...hope he goes over their and kicks ass...
btw, can anyone name one constructive thing the U.N. has done in the last, say, 25 years? What was their greatest accomplishment during that time?
Originally posted by TheBloopIt's outside the topic of this thread, but you show an utterly appallingly ignorance of law. For starters, look up what the "common law" means; it is law consisting of precedents from judicial decisions. The "common law" is a well established type of law existing for centuries BEFORE the US was formed and was recognized as essential by the Framers.
The fact is that the courts ARE subject to review by Congress... Congress creates the courts, and can dismantle or shut down any court they choose, at any time... no one in Congress has the guts to do that, but it would be well within their power...
when people ask, what's the check and balance to the courts, the answer is Congress..or at least, it's s ...[text shortened]... t the FL Supreme Court violated the law... that's the same margin as Roe v Wade, btw).
Congress can't shut down the Supreme Court or any State court.
Read Federalist 78 for the scope of the power the Framers meant to entrust to the courts. Without the courts to protect individual fundamental rights against majoritarian tyranny, a Lockean republic is impossible.
Your interpretation of Bush v. Gore is so riddled with laughable inaccuracies, I wouldn't even know where to start. If you want to start another thread, I'll explain what the issues in the case were, how the Florida Supreme Court did EXACTLY what it had done for a 100 years (interpret the election laws of Florida) and why your characterization of the decision of the court (particulary two of the DISSENTING Justices who didn't even want to grant cert) is utterly incorrect. I doubt that you would listen, however, it doesn't fit in well with the right wing propaganda. Virtually no serious constitutional scholar believes the case was correctly decided by the US Supreme Court and most believe the court should not have even taken the case as it dealt with the interpretation of Florida law (not Federal law) and the US Supreme Court has a long history of deferring to the Supreme Court of the state decision's on state law. That used to be a "conservative" position, until it seemed possible that counting all the votes in an election (how undemocratic!) would cause a right winger to lose.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere's nothing to interpret...Katherine Harris did exactly what the law required her to do... certify the election by a cetain date, x # of days after the election... the FL Supreme Court had no right to demand that the deadline be extended... and the Supreme Court of the United States of America agreed with me.
...the Florida Supreme Court did EXACTLY what it had done for a 100 years (interpret the election laws of Florida)...
Congress does have jurisdiction over the courts...who do you think creates the courts in the first place? Read Article 3 of the U.S. Constituion, if you have a copy. They can shut 'em down, they can reorganize them, they can combine them, they can do whatever the hell they want... I'll grant you they don't do anything, but they sure as hell could if they wanted to..
RE: "Virtually no serious constitutional scholar believes the case was correctly decided by the US Supreme Court..."
I suppose your definition of a serious constitutional scholar is "a lawyer who voted for Al Gore in 2000"...what 'scholars' are you talking about? Alan Dershowitz? Michael Moore?
Originally posted by TheBloopThe law also required recount procedures in close elections like this one. The recounts could not be completed by the certification dates; thus, there was a conflict between the two statutes. The recount statute was A) More recent; and B) Consistent with a 100 years of Florida law requiring the voter's intent to be the primary measure of interpretation of Florida election law. Try reading the actual decisions of the Florida Supreme Court rather than listening to Rush Limbaugh.
There's nothing to interpret...Katherine Harris did exactly what the law required her to do... certify the election by a cetain date, x # of days after the election... the FL Supreme Court had no right to demand that the deadline be exten ...[text shortened]... rs' are you talking about? Alan Dershowitz? Michael Moore?
The Supreme Court of the US DID NOT agree with the claim that the Florida Supreme court had incorrectly extended the recount. They decided that the way the final recount was ordered was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because, relying on Florida law, the Florida Supreme Court had declined to set a statewide standard and had left the decision on how the ballots would be counted to the county election boards. I repeat this was required by Florida law! The US Supreme Court took the step of stopping a recount that was in progress, something they had never done in the history of the country. This decision was purely politically motivated and a misuse of their powers by ACTIVIST judges: Scalia, Thomas, etc. etc. The final decision found a violation of the EPC but denied a remedy, another unheard of decision.
I have Article III right in front of me, it reads: "The judicial power of the United States SHALL be vested in ONE SUPREME COURT, AND in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time to ordain and establish." Read it again carefully; there MUST be a Supreme Court ("SHALL"😉. As usual you right wing "superpatriots" can't even read the Constitution.
I won't answer your last ignorant statement; the extraordinary nature of the decision without precedent and flying in the face of well-settled principles of law as outlined above, made it a laughingstock. It has not been followed in any other case; taken to its logical extreme it wwould require the overturning of EVERY SINGLE ELECTION in the US has they all have differences in how votes are counted and thus, would be EPC violations according to Bush v. Gore. I know you don't have the faintest clue of what I'm talking about, but your ignorance is no excuse when you try to pretend to have some understanding of a court decision you clearly don't have a clue about.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You continue to disgust me with your stupid comments about "my dislike for America". Apparently you will NEVER get it through your head the difference between the temporary occupants of power and America itself.
no1, if you leave out the insults, I'm listening. Personally, on the surface Bush v. Gore seemed like a sham. State supreme court deciding the outcome of a presidential election...garbage. Electoral college...garbage. General elec ...[text shortened]... right now. I respect your knowledge of the law here.
If you are going to study the Federalist papers, I recommend number 10, Madison's discussion on "factions"; number 51 Madison's masterly exposition of the seperation of powers and federalism and number 78, Hamiliton's discussion of judicial review. If you read and understand them, then you might have some idea of my political philosophy and might finally cease your "I hate America" crap.
It wasn't just shouting at a subordinate that drew concerns from the Dems. Here is a list of issues from Political Affairs Magazine.
Top Ten Problems With John Bolton
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1298/1/101
By Leo Walsh
Related stories: right wing watch
6-15-05, 10:07 am
1. Bolton’s role in the Bustani Affair helped block alternatives to the Iraq war. It reflected his personal as well as the administration’s bullying style of "diplomacy" when it came to clearing obstacles to attacking Iraq and demonstrates his personal disdain for international law and institutions, especially the UN. (Bustani was a UN chemical weapons expert that called for sending specialists to Iraq in 2002 to search for chemical weapons. Bolton was the point man for the Bush administration’s improper campaign to have him fired. Perhaps Bolton and the Bush people knew he’d find as much WMD in Iraq as US search teams have found since. Click for more information.
2. Bolton may have requested secret information from the National Security Agency about Syria’s weapons programs in order to exaggerate the advancement of those programs in order to build a case that Syria posed a serious or imminent threat. So far, documents related to this issue are being closely guarded by the White House, which refuses to show them to the Senate committee overseeing Bolton’s nomination process. What is there to hide?
3. Exaggerating or inventing information about countries Bolton doesn’t like wasn’t exclusive to Syria. Bolton tried to get two intelligence analysts fired because they disagreed with him about the possibility that Cuba had the potential to develop chemical and biological weapons. Witnesses stated that one of these individuals was Christian Westermann, an intelligence analyst with the State Department. Bolton argued with Westermann in 2002 while preparing for a speech in which he alleged Cuba had a biological weapons program. Cuba hadn’t done what Bolton claimed.
4. Bolton then misled the Senate under oath about punishing people who disagreed with him. Bolton misled the committee by testifying under oath that he did not seek to discipline, or have removed, intelligence analysts with whom he disagreed. But in the case of an intelligence officer for Latin America, the report said documents showed Bolton and his staff "actively discussed efforts to punish and remove the NIO (national intelligence officer) for several months in the summer and fall of 2002." Is this a paranoid personality?
5. Bolton has nothing but disdain for the UN and international law. Bolton once said, "there’s no such thing as the United Nations," adding that if the UN’s building in New York "lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference." In 1998 he even spoke against the payment of any further U.S. dues to the world body. In the Bustani Affair, Bolton personally used the threat of withholding US dues to pressure other countries into supporting the call to fire Bustani. Bustani later was found to have been fired improperly and was offered a reinstatement.
6. Bolton was among the "ordinary citizens" who led a near riot in Tallahassee demanding an end to the vote count in the 2000 election in Florida. Bolton was a Bush-Cheney loyalist along with all of the other "ordinary" people that stormed a Tallahassee library that day. He was quoted by the media a saying, "I’m with the Bush-Cheney team, and I’m here to stop the count."
7. Bolton does not believe in diplomacy. After Ambassador Thomas Hubbard asked him to tone down the text of a speech commenting on Kim Jong-Il, Bolton refused, decided to forego diplomacy on the eve of crucial talks with North Korea and called Kim Jong-Il a "tyrannical dictator." North Korea then refused to have any dealings with Bolton. Despite what one thinks of Kim Jong-Il, Bolton’s inability to close his mouth precludes him from diplomatic service. The stakes involved in talks with North Korea included finding ways of avoiding escalating global nuclear conflict. How much Bolton contributed to the present impasse isn’t clear.
8. Bolton puts the "faulty" in faulty intelligence. According to senior intelligence officials testifying under oath to the Senate committee, Bolton’s draft testimony prepared for a House hearing on Syria in 2003 went well beyond what the intelligence community could clear. Several federal departments and agencies objected to what Bolton intended to say.
9. Bolton is a loose cannon. After trying to overstep his authority in the Syria testimony in 2003, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (at the time) instituted an extraordinary policy to address the problem, requiring all of Mr. Bolton’s public presentations to be cleared by Larry Wilkerson, Secretary Colin Powell’s chief of staff, or by the Deputy Secretary himself. Being such a loose cannon in a regime of loose cannons suggest that Bolton may be over the edge.
10. Bolton abused his power and access to secret intelligence to find out information about US individuals and businesses. According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has acknowledged that Bolton did this. Senate Democrats are concerned that Bolton abused his authority, for personal and political reasons: in order to keep track of opponents of administration pollicies but also to keep tabs on intelligence officials with whom he has had disagreements in the past. Definitely a paranoid personality in the Nixon vein.
--Contact Leo Walsh at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.
I admit there is a serious left lean here, but these are the issues that caused the left to try and stop or postpone the appointment of Bolton.
Originally posted by sasquatch672What an incredibly bizarre reading of Federalist no. 10!!! Forget it - read a comic book!
[b]You continue to disgust me with your stupid comments about "my dislike for America".
Ay ay ay. Sheesh. Oy vey.
I enjoyed No. 10. I find it odd that you would select that one. In there, how does it go? Something like, "...would not the jealousies of men ensure that the states of the current Union...were they to be divided...would set ...[text shortened]... been railing against) in the last few weeks.
Have to read up on 78. I'll get back to you. [/b]