Presidnet Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, effectively bypassing the Senate logjam onterfering with his confirmation.
Democrats, of course, are furious.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called the appointment "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."
Really, Senator? I mean, the recess appointment has been used by every president since George Washington, pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, which reads as follows.
"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."
And since you are concerned about "devious maneuvers that evade constitutional consent" and "darken the cloud" over the nominee's credibility, consider this.
In 1961, John F. Kennedy used the recess appointment to gain a seat on the federal bench for Thurgood Marshall, who six years later become the first black associate justice on the Supreme Court.
Was the president involved a bad man who was upsetting the constitutional order of things? Was his nominee therefore not a credible judge? Were those who vilified the nominee therefore justified in their continuing obstructionism and increasingly vile rhetoric? Did you condemn that president and his nominee during your initial Senate campaign back in 1962 for governing outside of the constitutional system? And if you did not, surely you are willing to speak out today to condemn the two individuals involved in this long-ago constitutional travesty which showed contempt for the Senate. right?
There is, of course, a way for the Senate Democrats to bring John Bolton's tenure as UN Ambassador to an end. Call his nomination to the floor. Demand a vote, on the record, on the nomination. And then, when a majority of Senators votes against the nomination, Bolton will be out on his ass. It's really a quite simple process.
You mean you don't have the votes to reject the Bolton nomination?
You say that the Senate will approve the appointment, and Bolton will be able to serve until January 2009 instead of January 2007?
You say that the Senate WOULD consent, if only a minority of Senators would stand clear and allow the vote to take place?
Well then I have to ask -- who is really engaged in "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent"?