Sam Fox recess-appointed
You know, I really don't think the Founding Fathers meant that a one-week Congressional recess was a valid reason for appointing ambassadors that the Senate had all but rejected...
You know, I really don't think the Founding Fathers meant that a one-week Congressional recess was a valid reason for appointing ambassadors that the Senate had all but rejected...
5 comments:
That's surprising considering his nomination was withdrawn.
Yeah. Sen. Dodd has asked the GAO for an opinion on the legality of this request. I hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they slap the appointment down, hard.
I'm not sure the legality is questionable and Dodd might be overreacting. There might be more to this than we know and it seems to me the Democrats are getting shrill and litiginous now every time Bush does something they don't like. Might backfire. Might be already; I'm posting on poll numbers shortly.
Might backfire? Oh, you mean like the backlash you were predicting before the elections?
You _know_ this is bullshit, John -- that clause was written when it took _weeks_ for some members of Congress to get back to the Capitol. A one-week recess where nobody is more than a day away is _not_ why that authority was given, and you know it.
No disagreement here on original intent. I agree that Bush rammed it through. But the rules are the rules and I simply questioned whether there is a legal issue at play. I think not.
Post a Comment