Presidential abuse of power

Joeychgo

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
6,044
Reaction score
193
Location
Chicago, IL
Bush Gives Swift-Boat Donor Fox Recess Ambassador Appointment

By James Rowley

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- A Missouri businessman who donated to a group that questioned the combat heroism of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election was appointed ambassador to Belgium.

Sam Fox, who contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans For Truth in 2004, was questioned by Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, during a confirmation hearing about his donation to the group that attacked Kerry's Vietnam War record.

The administration said today in a statement that President George W. Bush had given Fox a ``recess appointment'' to the diplomatic post. Such appointments, conferred under a provision of the Constitution when Congress is in recess, don't require Senate confirmation.

The appointment was announced a week after Bush withdrew Fox's nomination in the face of opposition organized by Kerry, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a7a.JkMWlJnM&refer=us

I dont want to hear you whining (fossten) when GW doesnt get a spending bill without a time limit on troops. GW clearly abused his power on this one and used the Constitution specifically to circumvent congress because he wasnt going to get what he wanted, a patronage job.

I'll be suprised if the Dems dont sue on this one.
 
I dont want to hear you whining (fossten) when GW doesnt get a spending bill without a time limit on troops. GW clearly abused his power on this one and used the Constitution specifically to circumvent congress because he wasnt going to get what he wanted, a patronage job.

I'll be suprised if the Dems dont sue on this one.

Joey,

Your ignorance about Constitutional law and procedure knows no bounds. Recess appointments, like firing US attorneys, is an old, well-worn procedure.

Get over it you big whiner.

WAAAAAAH!
 
Please gimmie a break. YOU need to learn something about constitutional law intrepretation. One of the factors when debating a constitutional question is what the intention of the framers was. Im pretty sure it wasnt put there to circumvent the process of Senate oversight.

Now you know why I cheer whenever the Dems put one over on this lame duck. He is too happy to play loose wth the rules. This was blatent and in complete disrespect to the constitution.

Just remember this abuse of power, when congress gives him a hard time on EVERY appointment from now on. Dont whine then.
 
Please gimmie a break. YOU need to learn something about constitutional law intrepretation. One of the factors when debating a constitutional question is what the intention of the framers was. Im pretty sure it wasnt put there to circumvent the process of Senate oversight.

Now you know why I cheer whenever the Dems put one over on this lame duck. He is too happy to play loose wth the rules. This was blatent and in complete disrespect to the constitution.

Just remember this abuse of power, when congress gives him a hard time on EVERY appointment from now on. Dont whine then.

Gee, Joey, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the President use the recess appointment as retaliation for the pathetic anti-troop bill passed by the limpwrists in the House, or is it vice versa?

You are emotional like a woman. First you call me out unprovoked, then you bleed all over me like a big baby.

Don't lecture me about the intention of the Framers. You know NOTHING about the intentions of the Framers. Your Democrat buddies have attempted to circumvent and undermine the intentions of the Framers at EVERY TURN. Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

Get over it and seek therapy for your Bush Derangement Syndrome.
 
GW clearly abused his power on this one and used the Constitution specifically to circumvent congress

"Abused his power by using the constitution"?! Do u realize how much of an ozymoron that is?!
 
Yeah Shagdrum, I do. The constitution calls for Senate approval of nominations - but allows for recess appointments. (the purpose of which is to allow for when an important position is empty and needs to be filled ASAP and the senate is out of session) GW, realizing he couldnt win this nomination, withdrew it, waited for the spring break, and then did a recess appointment. Its called circumvention and abuse of the recess appointment power granted to the President.
 
Its called circumvention and abuse of the recess appointment power granted to the President.

Wrong, that's what YOU call it. And nobody really gives a rat's arse what you think anyway, since you have no credibility when it comes to Bush. And that's because Bush couldn't do anything right in your eyes. You have BDS and talking to you is a waste of time.

By the way, it's interesting that you have your panties in a knot over a recess appointment, while there is no reaction whatsoever from you about the Speaker of the House going around to terrorist nations, making policy, abusing her power, and misrepresenting the positions of our allies to those terrorist nations.

You, sir, are a hypocrite.
 
Nobody? When did you start speaking for anyone but yourself?

Your the hipocrite. I dont see your panties in a knot about the dozens of other congress members, republicans and dems alike, going over there and meeting with various officials.
 
Recess appointment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recess appointment occurs when the President of the United States fills a vacant Federal position during a recess of the United States Senate. The commission or appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session, or the position becomes vacant again. Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "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 purpose of the recess appointment power was to permit the President to keep offices filled when it was anticipated that the Senate would only meet during a small portion of the year. Until the 1930s, Congress rarely convened in the hot Washington summer, and a spring vacancy in an office might have to wait until the Senate convened in December to consider a nomination.

Presidents have sometimes used recess appointments to fill vacancies with individuals who might prove difficult to confirm, or who face staunch opposition within the Senate (see filibuster). The recess appointment may be made in hopes that, by the next session, opposition will have diminished. In recent years, however, a recess appointment has tended to harden the attitude of the opposition party, and confirmation then becomes all the more difficult.

Scholars and legal experts disagree as to how long the Senate must be in recess before the President may make such an appointment. President Theodore Roosevelt made several recess appointments during a one-day recess of the Senate.

Examples and use
Recess appointments have been made since the earliest days of the republic. President George Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and his appointment lapsed. Rutledge subsequently attempted suicide.

On August 11, 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt named Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to the United States Supreme Court through a recess appointment. He was subsequently confirmed by the Senate on December 4, 1902.

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment. This was done partly with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower made two other recess appointments.

Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments during his two terms in office; George H. W. Bush made 77 during his single term, most notably Lawrence Eagleburger for U.S. Secretary of State in 1992, sanctioned his role as "de facto" secretary since James Baker resigned.

President Bill Clinton made a recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee as Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, when it became clear that Lee's strong support of affirmative action would lead to Senate opposition. Similarly, when the Senate did not vote on his nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, Clinton made a recess appointment. Many people felt that the Senate's inaction was because Hormel was openly gay, and when he was appointed became the first such person to serve as a U.S. ambassador. Clinton made 140 recess appointments over two terms. On one of the last days of his Presidency, Clinton used the recess appointment power to place Roger L. Gregory on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Gregory was the first African-American to serve on that court.

President George W. Bush recess appointed two judges, William Pryor and Charles Pickering to U.S. courts of appeals after their nominations were subjected to a Senate filibuster by opposition Democrats. Judge Pickering, of the Fifth Circuit, withdrew his name from consideration for renomination and retired when his recess appointment expired. Judge Pryor was subsequently confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Eleventh Circuit. In his first six years in office, Bush has made 167 recess appointments.

On August 1, 2005, Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations.[1] Bolton had also been the subject of a Senate filibuster. The filibuster concerned documents, which the White House refused to release, which Democrats suggested may contain proof of Bolton's abusive treatment and coercion of staff members, or of his improper use of National Security Agency communications intercepts regarding U.S. citizens. Having failed to win Senate confirmation, he resigned his office in December 2006 concurrently with the adjournment of the 109th Congress.[2]

On April 4, 2007, during the Easter recess of Congress, Bush appointed Sam Fox as U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. Fox's appointment had been thwarted in Congress because he had donated money to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign, a group whose ads many Democrats blamed for John Kerry's loss.[3]
 
. Its called circumvention and abuse of the recess appointment power granted to the President.

Again with the oxymoron statements!! C'mon! By definition this is not in any way an abuse of power because it is a power granted to the president!
 
Give it up, Joey. You can't convince people the sky isn't blue when they can see that it is. The only one looking foolish is you.
 
Nothing to give up. Its just another abuse by a president that has become all too accostomed to being abusive with his power. Bush withdrew his nomination 2 weeks ago. He did so with the intention of circumventing congressional approval so as to reward a political supporter.

The purpose of the recess appointment power was to permit the President to keep offices filled when it was anticipated that the Senate would only meet during a small portion of the year.

Exactly... The recess appointment wasnt meant to find a way to reward a political supporter when Congress wont confirm such an appointment.

Keep in mind. All this kind of stuff is what the "liberal media" will use to keep republicans looking bad. The dems will drag this out for awhile, (Democrats call for legal review of Bush ambassador appointment) and I dont see alot of republicans stepping up to defend the move: Romney distances himself from Bush

Interesting thing Fossten - You call me a hipocrite, but you had no problem bashing clinton for the last minute pardons.... Also a Constitutionally granted presidential privalege. But here you defend Bush on those same grounds.

Your the Hipocrite.
 
blah blah blah...

Joey, you picked this fight with me personally. Obviously you have a personal problem, which I suggest might be solved in therapy. Your obsession with calling me out is amusing, considering you rarely know what you're talking about.

You still think Rove was the leaker? :bowrofl:

So you think Clinton's pardons were ok and you didn't mention them as something you disagreed with, but Bush's recess appointments are an "ABUSE OF POWER?"

You're not just a hypocrite, you're an idiot. I have no more time to waste on you.
 
I said nothing about my opinion regarding Clinton's pardons - just pointed out that you spouted off about that use of Constitutionally granted power, but think GW is justified in what he has done. Thats hippocritical.

Oh, and I only called you out because I knew you would be involved anyway. your the biggest Right wing whiner here, so naturally, I directed it at you.

Past your problems: Great quote:

Mr. Bush can't simultaneously complain that his nominees aren't being accorded due process and take steps to avoid due process. If the administration hopes to achieve anything in its final months, the administration would do well to make more of an effort to adapt to the Senate's new political landscape.

Thats called political reality. Cowboy Diplomacy is over. He better pray the right leaning Supreme Court justices all stay put, because his odds of getting a Justice confirmed now are zero.

See, my problem with the whole thing, isnt the useage of a recess appointment. Its the blantent usurping of the authority of the Senate that bothers me. GW withdrew the nomination literally moments before the vote, and then did a recess appointment. See, thats blatently playing loose with the rules and clearly against the spirit of the power.

As far as im concerned, because he withdrew the nomination right before the vote, he should be barred from making the appointment now. Why? Because it was a deliberate move on his part. The Senate was about to have the vote, so there was no legitimate reason to need to make a recess appointment. I bet you - if litigated, a court will rule in a similar fashion.

Tell me your happy to see him outfox the dems on this - ok, that I can handle. But, try to justify what he did as 100% legit and tell me im nuts for believing otherwise, and that I cant buy into. GW intended to usurp the role of the Senate because he wasnt going to get his way. Plain and simple.
 
Simple.

I dont really have a problem with the recess appointments in general. Every president makes them.

BUT... To nominate someone, realize your going to not get a confirmation, withdraw the nomination, and then - a week later use a recess appointment for that same person in the same position -- come on. Thats called - I dont need the senate and dont care about how its 'suppose' to work. Its too blatent. Its too big of a FU to stomach.
 
Thats called - I dont need the senate and dont care about how its 'suppose' to work. Its too blatent. Its too big of a FU to stomach.

You do understand what this is all about, right?

Kerry is all pissed because this guy donated to the Swift Boat Vets, (which I did btw too) and then Kerry could not get the guy to apologize for it on the stand. This has nothing to do with the guys credentials. It is a personal political vendetta by Kerry and the smarmy Dems.

Way to go George! Stick it in their face and wag it around. LOL!

crotch shot.jpg
 
And the other side of the coin..... This guy donated alot of money and is being rewarded. Its also not about his credentials from GW's side.
 
And the other side of the coin..... This guy donated alot of money and is being rewarded. Its also not about his credentials from GW's side.

Man, I hope you call foul every time the Dems have and do do it.

Kerry got swift-boated because he deserved it, plain and simple. And if this guy helped that occur, bravo. I bet I had more influence working with the Swifties than this guy's money did. I think I am going to ask Bush for Nancy Peelosi's job.:D
 
Joey,

You may want to read this and brush up on your Congressional Abuse of Power.
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

Nancy Pee might be in a heep of trouble. We'll see if the media pursues this.

If her actions could indeed be considered treasonous and charges are filed, should she step down and resign her Congressional post while the prosecution takes place?
 

Members online

Back
Top