Dear Professor:
President Bush recently made an appointment of a
federal judge while Congress was in recess. What is all the flap over
his action?
Dear Kurt:
Good thing you brought this up; it is important that we take an objective look at this critical topic.
Firstly,
all the President has done with his recess appointment of that federal
judge is throw a big-time, ill-conceived, despicable, uncalled-for,
out-of-line temper tantrum. I'm so mad that I could kick my dog. In
fact I did, but only once, because then he bit me.
As you may
know, a recess appointment is a temporary appointment of a judge, made
during a Congressional recess, just to get around the Senate
confirmation process.
Sometimes using this approach is an
absolute necessity. For example, President Clinton appointed a judge to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This was a brilliant move by a
brilliant president. He knew that the Senate would not approve his
appointment (what a man of intuition), and since he was unwilling to
let an eminently qualified judge be rejected by the Senate, he used
this little end run around Congress to get his man into the position of
federal appeals judge.
What is absolutely outrageous about
President Bush's appointment is his reasons for making this recess
appointment. Here's a man with absolutely no political prowess. During
his tenure, members of the Senate have used filibusters to
single-handedly prevent approval of some of his judicial nominations
(well, duh!), and since he is unwilling to allow an eminently qualified
judge be kept on hold by the Senate, he used this little end run around
Congress to get his man onto the federal court.
See the difference?
Outrageous, huh? Oh, I could just spit! I'm so furious. Really!
Now
let me be the first to say that there is absolutely nothing illegal
with what the President did. He has explicit authority from the
Constitution to do this. Also, there is nothing immoral with what the
President did. This is just a routine political move in the day-to-day
give-and-take of governmental actions. There's not even anything
unethical with what the president did. He's the president, and this is
one of the tools the he has at his disposal to move his agenda forward.
Still,
it's just wrong. That's all. Don't ask me how, but it is. It is just
totally, unequivocally evil. That is so obvious -- even an adolescent
political observer ripe with the acne of governmental naivete can see
that!
The problem is that President Bush is just bowing to what
the public wants. That's hogwash, though. The President is supposed to
be a leader. He gets elected to govern, not to follow. The President
should take a cue from President Clinton. The latter governed by
following the will of the people. Now that's leadership!
Frankly, though, I don't even care about this whole issue. Call it sour grapes if you must -- but it's not! Really!
Well,
what if the president gets some of his ideologues on a federal bench.
So What!! Now, I'm not saying I'm going to take my football and go
home, but there are so many proper-minded ideologues on the bench that
a conservative ideologue sprinkled here or there throughout the
judiciary just isn't going to make much difference. So, I say, "SO
WHAT!!!"
I can live with this -- for now.
I realize it
has probably been frustrating to have me take such a guarded approach,
moving delicately from point to point, in answering your question, but
in order to remain objective, I must speak passionatelessly; it is
important that I maintain an air of impartiality in this "Ask the
Professor" forum.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I shouldn't have to spit in anger -- inside the house. My wife is giving me one of those looks.
The
moral of the story? It's twofold. Firstly, to be a leader, President
Bush should be more like President Clinton. Secondly, if you're angry,
don't kick your dog and don't spit in the house.
Capeesh?
Professor
Nutbottom is a Senior Fellow Professor of American Culture at Ivy Leaf
University in Urnotserse, Pennsylvania. He enjoys reading, skiing, and
sorting antique bottle caps. You can learn more about his creator by
visiting http://pepe-day-2-day.blogspot.com.
The Cheers, (c) Rob Favero, All rights reserved.
President Bush recently made an appointment of a
federal judge while Congress was in recess. What is all the flap over
his action?
Dear Kurt:
Good thing you brought this up; it is important that we take an objective look at this critical topic.
Firstly,
all the President has done with his recess appointment of that federal
judge is throw a big-time, ill-conceived, despicable, uncalled-for,
out-of-line temper tantrum. I'm so mad that I could kick my dog. In
fact I did, but only once, because then he bit me.
As you may
know, a recess appointment is a temporary appointment of a judge, made
during a Congressional recess, just to get around the Senate
confirmation process.
Sometimes using this approach is an
absolute necessity. For example, President Clinton appointed a judge to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This was a brilliant move by a
brilliant president. He knew that the Senate would not approve his
appointment (what a man of intuition), and since he was unwilling to
let an eminently qualified judge be rejected by the Senate, he used
this little end run around Congress to get his man into the position of
federal appeals judge.
What is absolutely outrageous about
President Bush's appointment is his reasons for making this recess
appointment. Here's a man with absolutely no political prowess. During
his tenure, members of the Senate have used filibusters to
single-handedly prevent approval of some of his judicial nominations
(well, duh!), and since he is unwilling to allow an eminently qualified
judge be kept on hold by the Senate, he used this little end run around
Congress to get his man onto the federal court.
See the difference?
Outrageous, huh? Oh, I could just spit! I'm so furious. Really!
Now
let me be the first to say that there is absolutely nothing illegal
with what the President did. He has explicit authority from the
Constitution to do this. Also, there is nothing immoral with what the
President did. This is just a routine political move in the day-to-day
give-and-take of governmental actions. There's not even anything
unethical with what the president did. He's the president, and this is
one of the tools the he has at his disposal to move his agenda forward.
Still,
it's just wrong. That's all. Don't ask me how, but it is. It is just
totally, unequivocally evil. That is so obvious -- even an adolescent
political observer ripe with the acne of governmental naivete can see
that!
The problem is that President Bush is just bowing to what
the public wants. That's hogwash, though. The President is supposed to
be a leader. He gets elected to govern, not to follow. The President
should take a cue from President Clinton. The latter governed by
following the will of the people. Now that's leadership!
Frankly, though, I don't even care about this whole issue. Call it sour grapes if you must -- but it's not! Really!
Well,
what if the president gets some of his ideologues on a federal bench.
So What!! Now, I'm not saying I'm going to take my football and go
home, but there are so many proper-minded ideologues on the bench that
a conservative ideologue sprinkled here or there throughout the
judiciary just isn't going to make much difference. So, I say, "SO
WHAT!!!"
I can live with this -- for now.
I realize it
has probably been frustrating to have me take such a guarded approach,
moving delicately from point to point, in answering your question, but
in order to remain objective, I must speak passionatelessly; it is
important that I maintain an air of impartiality in this "Ask the
Professor" forum.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I shouldn't have to spit in anger -- inside the house. My wife is giving me one of those looks.
The
moral of the story? It's twofold. Firstly, to be a leader, President
Bush should be more like President Clinton. Secondly, if you're angry,
don't kick your dog and don't spit in the house.
Capeesh?
Professor
Nutbottom is a Senior Fellow Professor of American Culture at Ivy Leaf
University in Urnotserse, Pennsylvania. He enjoys reading, skiing, and
sorting antique bottle caps. You can learn more about his creator by
visiting http://pepe-day-2-day.blogspot.com.
The Cheers, (c) Rob Favero, All rights reserved.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |