GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Senate in no hurry to confirm Bush nominees

• 43294
  

  It is the job of the Senate to give an up or down vote. These nominees are not unqualified. This is completely distorting the balance of power in our government.

  Todd Posted February 8, 2008 11:16 AM
• 41314
  

  Why bother to have a hearing when you already know there aren't enough votes to confirm a nominee? The majority party (R and D both) only do that when they want to publicize that the minority is stalling their president's nominees. When the majority party in Congress is not the president's party, the president can either work with the opposing party in the Senate to get people acceptable to both sides confirmed and on the job or he can let his nominees languish and complain.

  Most prior Republican presidents worked with Democratic Senates and got most of their nominees confirmed. Clinton worked the with the Republican Senate and got most of his nominees confirmed. All it takes is an acceptance by the Senate that the president gets to nominate and an acceptance by the president that he requires the consent of the Senate. When the two are of opposite parties, governing responsibly means finding a middle ground.

  Bush seems more interested in making political points than he is in governing.

  The Sentate has little enough time to do its job without wasting time on nominees that no one, including the president (unless he's even more of an idiot than some people give him credit for), expects it to confirm. Politics may be a clash of ideals, but governing in a bipartisan world requires compromise.

  DJ Posted January 11, 2008 8:51 AM
• 41140
  

  There should be no need to recess in the first place! Senate Dems should use their power to vote on nominations - they could vote NO, and move on to the next nominee. Leaving boards and top level positions without capable leadership is irresponsible and the taxpayers deserve better.

  Amy P. Posted January 9, 2008 6:14 PM
• 41091
  

  Voters should be concerned that four of six seats on the Federal Election Commission are vacant in an election year.

  Steve Richardson Posted January 9, 2008 9:16 AM
• 41076
  

  Leahy is so dishonest: Here's the facts, there are 11 current nominated Appeals court judges languishing - no action some have been nominated since June 2007. He refers to lower circuit judges when he spout his numbers. Take a look at the truth:

  1. William E. Smith 1st Circuit nom 12/6/07
  2. Stone, Shalom 3rd Circuit nom 7/17/07
  3. Gene Pratter 3rd Circuit nom 11/15/07
  4. Getchell, E. 4th Circuit nom 9/6/07
  5. Matthews, Steve 4th Circuit nom 9/6/07
  6. Conrad, Robert 4th Circuit nom 7/17/07
  7. Rod Rosenstein 4th Circuit nom 11/15/07
  8. Haynes, Catharina 5th Circuit nom 7/17/07
  9. Kethledge, Ray 6th Circuit nom 6/28/07
  10. Murphy, Stephen 6th Circuit nom 6/28/07
  11. Keisler, Peter DC Circuit nom 6/29/07
  There are 5 vacancies on the 4th Circuit alone causing a judicial emergency - lower judges sitting in on cases. Leahy's performance is horrible. Govexec should have given these FACTS.

  Dean O Posted January 9, 2008 7:59 AM