Checks and balances, man... sure, it's annoying, but if you can do it, why not? The Republicans should, if they get the chance.
I was once in a business that was a 50/50 partnership. Nobody was "the boss". The result was a total disaster. Never again...
Somebody has to be in absolute control. It is fine to have others who provide the "advise and consent" function, but when you get a situation like we have had in the Judiciary committee, it is a recipe for disaster.
Not to reopen the Pickering argument, which has been fought here to the tune of 100s of posts -- but, Schumer's position on the Pickering nomination was horrible. Basically, he made it clear that his intent was to apply an "ideology" litmus test to nominees, effectively, giving the Committee a veto power over presidential appointments.
This arrangement is untenable and must be driven back. Unfortunately, the only way I can see is for the Republicans, who thus far have not done so, to stoop to these tactics. I think Hatch is just getting pissed enough to do it (if you saw him on the Senate floor getting into it with Durbin last week, you know what I mean).
Someone has to be the boss; only an overwhelming consensus of the Senate should be able to stop a nomination. But when the Dems had the majority, they didn't even allow Pickering to come to a vote. This is my complaint... |
