Bolton cloture vote fails

[kansasblue]

54 Ayes 60 needed to end debate. Dem demand more doc before vote.

[NJ Democrats]

1. Yes, I heard that!

[KTM]

45. Couldn't they prevent a recess appointment

By some Dem with fortitude refusing to break for July 4th ? Hold open something ?

[radfringe]

48. By some Dem with fortitude refusing to break for July 4th?

along with fortitude - that Dem would also need a spine and balls... unfortunately such items are a rare commodity in Congress these days

Smirk-boy will do a recess appointment of Bolton, he'll ignore any protests from repugs that "might" erupt, and then blame it all on the Dems for being partisan or obstructionists

any repugs who might "protest" will be pinned to the ground, forced to drink the kook-aid and will have rubber stamps super-glued to their hands

[G_j]

2. good news

of course it looks like * may put him in there during recess. :eyes:

[mac56]

4. Wouldn't that be one of the most colossal mistakes he could make?

Clearly there's enough wariness of Bolton on both sides of the aisle that doing so would constitute a major blunder.

[G_j]

13. I would think so, but

I have not as yet seen any limitations to Bush's arrogance.
Supposedly he refused to answer a question concerning this (today?)

[Gman]

36. Major blunder yes

but they don't really care what anyone thinks.

[tavalon]

46. Does Bush seem to you to be the sort of fella

who gives a flying fuck for what Congress thinks?

Just asking.

[Massacure]

17. He can't.

Look at the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The U.N. ambassador position did not open up a vacancy during a Senate recess. Thus Bush cannot appoint Bolton without the Senate.

[gizmo1979]

25. That's not what they said on NBC.

They asked Bush if he would make Bolton a recess appt.

[Massacure]

26. I guess we are going to have to get the Supreme Court involved then.

Unless there is something else I don't see, that part of the Constitution should explicitly forbid Bush from appointing Bolton.

[gizmo1979]

27. I hope you're right.NT

[Pirate Smile]

34. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to want to touch that with a

billion foot pole. No way.

[kster]

32. NBC ?

[Warren Stupidity]

28. It seems that the interpretation is

that if the vacancy exists during a recess it qualifies. I can find no interpretation that would appear to support your quite logical, plain english interpretation that the vacancy must start during a recess in order to qualify as a 'vacancy that may happen during a recess'.

Here is the standard interpretation:

"1. “Vacancies That May Happen”
The text of the Constitution provides that the President may use his Recess Appointments power to fill any vacancy “that may happen” during a recess of the Senate.22 One possible construction of the word “happen” is that only those vacancies that “happen to occur” during a recess of the Senate can be filled by recess appointment. Such a limited construction of the phrase, however, was rejected early in the country’s history. A long line of Attorney General23 and Office of Legal Counsel24 opinions have held that the word refers to those vacancies that “happen to exist” during a recess of the Senate, whether the vacancies arise before or during the recess."

http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/recapp.pdf

[Massacure]

30. So if it went to the Supreme Court, what do you think would happen?

Would the court rule against the wishes of Congress?

The scenario I see is that Bush could appoint Bolton and Bolton would stay until the end of the 2006 session. Then couldn't Bush nominate Bolton again? What's to stop him from repeating appointments during recesses? Would the Supreme Court allow him to defy Congress like that?

[Warren Stupidity]

31. the court wouldn't even hear the case

this is long settled law. Why would they overturn an interpretation that dates back to the start of this constitutional government?

[SlipperySlope]

Interesting - so he could reappoint forever?

Just by doing it over and over in vacancies?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. in theory

But step back a minute. This is a victory for our side (assuming it happens, so far it appears to be a trial balloon.) We've not broken ranks, we've held our ground, they've blinked. No nukular option, nothing.

If Bolton gets a recess appointment he is a lame duck embarassment on arrival. Plus, it doesn't take much insight to figure out that the 'Bolton Docs' are so damaging that they can't be released. We now have a Real Big Clue where to start looking for the evidence that is going to send these clowns to the Hague.

[SlipperySlope]

52. Yes - I agree

Bolton would be seen as a lame duck, and Bush would be seen as increasingly ineffective. A win either way for us.

[SlipperySlope]

33. oops - n/t

[Czolgosz]

43. I wouldn't trust the Federalist Society to offer a "standard translation"

of anything.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. I'm not trusting them.

The recess appointment has been used in this way for 200 years. If you can find contrary evidence make your case. The paper I cited was just one of many.


Besides, this is a huge victory for our side. Rejoice!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

42. WAAAA!!!!! I want my way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am the God boy King, the great and powerfull Wizard of Oz G DUHbya

:rofl:

[gizmo1979]

3. They got 58 votes last time

the people are being heard alittle.Bush is going to make a recess appt. out of Bolton.Who needs a constitution?!

[NJ Democrats]

5. 4 more votes for us!

But yes a recess appt. :(

[Renew Deal]

11. We did not get 4 more votes

There were 38 nays. A few people didn't vote.

[Massacure]

18. See post 17.

[wakeme2008]

6. MSNBC Link here

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[maddezmom]

10. AP link here: Democrats Block Attempt to Confirm Bolton

WASHINGTON - Democrats blocked another attempt Monday by the Senate to confirm John Bolton to become U.N. ambassador, delivering a second-straight setback to President Bush even as he left the door open to temporarily installing Bolton on his own.


The Republican-run chamber fell six votes short of the 60 it needed to end Democratic delays that have prevented a roll call on confirming the tough-talking conservative. The vote was 54-38 in favor of ending the delays.

The tally left Bush facing stark choices — most of which could leave him appearing weak at a time he is facing sagging poll numbers and fighting lame-duck status six months into his final term.

Wielding a seldom-used power, he could install Bolton during the Senate's upcoming July 4 recess without the chamber's approval. Under the Constitution, the so-called recess appointment would only last through the next one-year session of Congress — in Bolton's case until January 2007.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/un_ambassador;_

[WePurrsevere]

14. 1 year!? That's more then enough time to tick off the world further...

with Boltons's total lack of diplomatic abilities and so much (more) damage could be done with International relations.

[Larkspur]

7. This is a moral victory for defenders of Democracy

Yes, I know that Bush will probably appoint him during recess, but Bolton does NOT have the consent of the US Senate behind him. That won't faze Bolton but it will give some ammo to other countries to use against him. Also the Dems need to keep hammering the WH over the documents they are demanding.

Aren't recess appointments temporary? Doesn't the senate still have to formally approve Bolton?

[I Have A Dream]

35. Good point about him going in without the backing of the Senate.

I think that he'll have a much more difficult time getting any of B*'s agenda accomplished because of this.

[KaliTracy]

37. it is my understanding that they are temporary, one of the judges that

just got confirmed was already on the bench from a recess appointment I think.

[spooky3]

38. The other reps will simply put up with him and ignore him as much

as possible, and just ride out the year.

[mom cat]

8. Great news! Do I hear the sound of backbones straightening up?

[Frederik]

9. Good

maybe this is ruining their Iran timetable.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Musical Interlude

Please click here.

[MeDeMax]

15. thnx, I needed that ... n/t

[Judi Lynn]

16. Hey, thanks!

http://web.telia.com.nyud.net:8090/~u52102840/shakinbeeu.gif

[CBHagman]

40. Time for the Dance of Joy!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

29. I was even singing along...

badly, but joyfully...
Thanks!

[Democracy White]

19. Democrats block Bolton Nomination Again

I got this from Yahoo News

I hope the link works

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/ap_on_go_st_pe/un_ambassador

WASHINGTON - Democrats blocked another attempt Monday by the Senate to confirm John Bolton to become U.N. ambassador, delivering a second-straight setback to President Bush even as he left the door open to temporarily installing Bolton on his own.


The Republican-run chamber fell six votes short of the 60 it needed to end Democratic delays that have prevented a roll call on confirming the tough-talking conservative. The vote was 54-38 in favor of ending the delays.

<snip>

Should Bush decide against that, he could withdraw the nomination or authorize further concessions to Democrats who are demanding access to information, some of it classified, about Bolton before they stop stalling.

Even before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted the Senate would block the nomination again — leaving Bush in a ticklish situation.

"The president will have to make a decision whether he wants to send this flawed candidate to the United Nations," Reid said.

[babsbunny]

20. Oh Thank You!!!

Thank You!!!

[fryguy]

21. new-kle-yar option?

will frist & co. have the balls to threaten it on non-judicial nominations?

[knowbody0]

22. yahoo!

[goclark]

23. Oh Happy Day!!!!!

[Pryderi]

24. Why does Yahoo move news stories???? Link doesn't work, and it's

not the first time it's happened.

[Bravo411]

44. Go here

go here

[leesa]

39. Good job, Dems. Keep the spine stiff!

[tsuki]

47. It's a recess appointment, and the US is withholding

part of its commitment to the UN. Yeah, he'll have a lot of clout.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

49. I find this to be great news and a real sign

that the buffoon's regime is crumbling. Even if the buffoon recess appoints Bolton, Bolton will have no backing. No matter what the buffoon chooses to do here will NOT look good.

What I love, love, love is the screams of "obstructionists" coming out of the whining buffoon's mouth. Clinton could tell that little buffoon a thing or two about obstructionists, but I never heard Clinton whine about it.

I think as the truth comes out, we will all get to watch this idiot completely lose it. He's gonna blow, and I'm gonna laugh.

[Logician]

51. Talking Points by Democrats Needed

On news programs, I am hearing talking points by the Bushies and Rethugs that smear the Democrats as being obstructionists and demanding an up and down vote on Bolton. I heard it several times on the ABC/NBC/CNN morning news programs. This is the type of strategic repetition that brainwashes most of America. It is purely Rovian in its method: just keep repeating lies and eventually America will come to believe.

The Democrats need to construct two or three talking points or sound bites to counter these. About Bolton, for sure, but also about the WH as being obstructionist and dishonest by not turning over reports that contain critical info on Bolton which is needed for full evaluation. They need to bring America to believe that obstruction is not due to the Democrats being careful and critical, but rather that the WH is typically being dishonest and unyielding-- this providing the barrier.