Best of the Web Today - June 22, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
A Confirmation Solution
It looked yesterday as though a recess appointment was likely for U.N. Ambassador-designate John Bolton; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had said there was nothing he could do to break a Democratic filibuster. Then Frist flip-flopped after talking to the White House and said, "The president made it very clear that he expects an up-or-down vote." Long Island's Newsday gives a possible reason:
The problem, according to diplomats at the State Department and the UN, is that Bolton may not be willing to accept a recess appointment, which would be good until the next Congress convenes in January 2007. That could not be confirmed yesterday, but sources said it is widely believed to be true at both institutions.
It also seemed to Republicans and Democrats here [in Washington] to be consistent with his character.
"The constitution provided for recess appointments because, at the time it was written, the Senate was not in session for long periods, and the difficulty of travel made it hard to convene a special session," Newsday notes.
If the president did give Bolton a recess appointment, Democrats would cry abuse of power. The New York Times reports that the Dems "say sending Mr. Bolton to the United Nations without the imprimatur of the Senate would only weaken Mr. Bolton and the Bush administration." If the Senate had actually rejected Bolton, the Democrats would have a point. But in fact the lack of such an imprimatur is the result of an obstructionist minority's blocking a Senate vote. It is the Senate Democrats, then, not the president, who are evading the Senate's advise-and-consent responsibility.
The Bolton problem will have to be resolved politically, but it seems clear from this and the dispute over judicial nominees that there is a problem in the confirmation process, and perhaps it's time to start thinking about a long-term constitutional solution. Why not a constitutional amendment that would go something like this:
Section 1. The President's power to fill vacancies during a recess of the Senate shall apply only in the case of a recess lasting ninety days or longer.
Section 2. The Senate shall vote on all presidential appointments within ninety days of the first day the Senate is in session after the President submits an appointment. The Senate's failure to fulfill this obligation shall be construed as consenting to the appointment.
Section 3. The provisions of this Article shall take effect at the beginning of the next Presidential term after the ratification of this Article.
The effect of this would be to render ineffective all of the obstructionist tactics--blue slips, delayed committee hearings, filibusters--that Republicans used to block nominees during the Clinton years and Democrats are using now, while having no effect on the Senate's constitutional prerogative to set its own rules vis-à-vis legislation. Section 3, by deferring the change until the next presidential term, would avoid any consideration of short-term partisan advantage.
One objection to this proposal is that it might allow confirmation by filibuster. That is, if more than 40 but fewer than 50 senators favored a nominee, they could refuse to allow cloture, thus preventing a "no" vote and running out the clock on the Senate's power to reject a nominee.
Doing so, however, would put the Senate in the position of explicitly failing to do its constitutional duty--and if the Senate fails to fulfill its obligation, it seems only fair to resolve a dispute with the president in the latter's favor. This prospect would give the Senate an incentive to reform its own rules to ensure an up-or-down vote on every nominee.
If someone in Congress were to introduce such an amendment, the biggest obstacle to ratification would probably be the Senate itself, two-thirds of whose members would have to approve, since on balance it would enhance the president's powers and diminish the Senate's. But most senators of both parties have the experience of being on the wrong side of such obstructionism during either the Clinton or Bush years, and of course every senator dreams of being president someday. So perhaps they could find common ground on a reform whose partisan effects would become clear only after future elections.
'Some May Believe'
Dick Durbin took to the Senate floor yesterday to apologize tearfully for likening American troops to Nazis. Well, sort of. "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Washington Post quotes the Senate's No. 2 Democrat as saying. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies." (Blogger Ian Schwartz has video.)
As National Review's Kathryn Lopez notes, it would have been better if Durbin had simply said, I crossed the line. I was wrong. I'm sorry. But the Post reports his Republican colleagues were inclined to accept his apology.
What's really appalling is that so few prominent Democrats--with the notable exception of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago--expressed any objection to Durbin's calumny. Indeed, many vigorously defended it. Here's Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, quoted by the conservative Illinois Leader (hat tip: blogger John Ruberry):
"The Bush Administration and Republican leaders are engaged in a pathetic attempt to make Senator Dick Durbin's condemnation of the use of torture at Guantanamo Bay an issue. As a result of the revelations of conditions at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram prison in Afghanistan, the Republicans owe the American people, our soldiers and veterans an apology for undermining American values such as the Rule of Law, putting our troops at greater risk around the world, and cutting veterans health care benefits when they come home."
An editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, possibly the most far-left big-city daily in America, actually blasted Durbin--not for likening the troops to Nazis but for "caving in" and issuing a nonapology last week that implied the comparison might not have been totally justified:
The senator should have hit back hard, just as the Amnesty International did when its comparison of Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag was attacked. By caving in, Durbin did just what the orchestrated right-wing smear effort required to succeed: It made him the story rather than focusing further attention on the outrageous violations of international law and human rights being perpetrated in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the name of the American people.
Last week on CNN's "Larry King Live," guest host Bob Costas put a question to left-wing actress Vanessa Redgrave:
Costas: Even given the mistakes or perceived mistakes of American policy, what is the greater evil in the world, America and its policies or America's enemies?
Redgrave: It's an important question. One of our most respected judges and highest up in our judicial system said that laws which detain indefinitely without charge, without trial, without defense, without prosecution, without evidence, without cross examination, are a greater evil than terrorism, and I feel the same, actually.
Many of us suspect that this is the prevailing attitude of the liberal left. Durbin's comments and the Democrats' reactions to them certainly do nothing to alleviate this impression.
Cribbing From Kerry
"Two days after announcing his intention to seek the presidency, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday accused President Bush of 'misleading statements and premature declarations of victory' in Iraq and called on him to change course," reports the Associated Press:
"The disconnect between the administration's rhetoric and the reality on the ground has opened not just a credibility gap, but a credibility chasm. Standing right in the middle of that chasm are 139,000 American troops--some in their third rotations," the Delaware senator said in a speech at a Washington think tank.
He said Bush should level with voters about the stakes and risks in Iraq and push to get allies more involved in security and reconstruction efforts. While the address broke little new ground, it was arguably the first campaign speech of the 2008 race.
When Biden ran for president in 1988, he was forced from the race when it was revealed that he had borrowed lines from Neil Kinnock, an unsuccessful British candidate for prime minister. Now he seems to be cribbing from John Kerry*. It seems utterly bizarre that Biden is now betting on failure in Iraq three years from now.
Karl Zinsmeister, editor of The American Enterprise, offers a far more sanguine view of Iraq:
Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside.
Many of the soldiers I spent time with during this spring had also been deployed during the initial invasion back in 2003. Almost universally they talked to me about how much change they could see in the country. They noted progress in the attitudes of the people, in the condition of important infrastructure, in security. . . .
Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. . . . It will take some time, but Iraq has begun the process of becoming a normal country.
Time may prove Biden right and Zinsmeister wrong, but Biden is now in a position of staking his political future on the hope of failure in Iraq. We argued throughout the 2004 campaign that this was a morally and politically hazardous approach for the Democrats to take, and the voters proved us right, at least on the political hazards. We guess Joe Biden is just a slow learner.
* An unsuccessful, French-looking American candidate for president.
My Felon Americans
"With a victory in Iowa last week and appeals arguments Wednesday in federal court, advocates for restoring felons' right to vote say they are making progress in rolling back laws that disproportionately affect blacks and other minorities," the Associated Press reports from New York:
"Felony disenfranchisement laws are the last vestiges of Jim Crow," said Catherine Weiss, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University who is working on the issue. "They disenfranchise African Americans way out of proportion to their numbers in the population."
Weiss is saying that disfranchising felons violates the rights of blacks--which strikes us as an invidious equivalency.
By This Standard, No One Can Head the ACLU
"The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico has suspended one of its chapters after learning that a board member was heading up a controversial organization."--KOAT-TV (Albuquerque), June 21
The Tofu Effect
"Women who eat soya-based foods may be damaging their chances of becoming pregnant and should give up eating them during the most fertile part of their monthly cycle, a scientist said yesterday," London's Guardian reports from Copenhagen:
Professor Lynn Fraser has found that men's sperm quickly passes its sell-by date if it comes into contact with genistein, a compound found in soya.
Laboratory tests suggest the naturally occurring chemical destroys the mechanism that allows sperm to dock with women's eggs, she said at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Copenhagen. . . .
Even the Vegetarian Society went along with Prof Fraser's advice: "For anyone struggling to become pregnant, avoiding soya products for a few days a month is worth a try if there is even a slim chance that it will help fertility." It recommended alternatives for vegetarians and vegans, including Quorn meat substitutes, oat or rice milk and pulses.
This might explain why the tofu-eating Japanese have a dangerously low fertility rate. And we're not sure, but we'd guess women in blue states eat a lot more tofu than those in red states, so this may be compounding the Roe effect.
Who Says the Sexual Revolution Is Dead?
"Arroyo: Sin a Great Liberator"--headline, ABS-CBN News (Philippines), June 20
They'll Report to Mr. Ed
"Mares Picked to Manage Human Services Programs"--headline, Mail Tribune (Medford, Ore.), June 21
What Would Drivers Do Without Studies?
"Cellphones Take Up Driver Attention, Study Finds"--headline, Reuters, June 21
What Would We Do Without 3-Year Federal Studies?
"3-Year Federal Study of 9/11 Urges Safer Skyscraper Rules"--headline, New York Times, June 22
You Don't Say
"Deceased Children Are Touchy Topic in Casual Conversation"--headline, Dear Abby column, June 20
Take That, Tom!
The New York Sun reports that a move is afoot in Berkeley, Calif., to change the name of Jefferson Elementary School, because the third president owned slaves. A familiar enough story, but this one reaches whole new levels of complexity. The proposed new name for the school is Sequoia Elementary, "but even with that name, the school district cannot quite dodge the slavery connotations":
Some community members have pointed out that under Chief Sequoia's leadership in the early 19th century, the Cherokee nation owned more than 1,500 black slaves. A spokesman for the Berkeley Unified School District, Mark Coplan, acknowledged that Chief Sequoia "presumably owned slaves and was rather barbaric," but he emphasized that the proposed new name would honor the sequoia tree, not the Cherokee leader.
The school conducted a vote of parents, teachers and tykes on what new name to propose. "Sequoia narrowly beat out the second-place candidate, Ohlone, which would have honored a California tribe." But wait, aren't Indian names supposed to be offensive?
"Other names rejected in the April vote would have paid tribute to the abolitionist Sojourner Truth, black diplomat Ralph Bunche, Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez, and Berkeley's late rent-board commissioner, Florence McDonald." Luckily, Berkeley's late rent-board commissioner already has a fast-food chain named after her.
This isn't the first such name change in the loopy Northern California city:
Three Berkeley schools have changed their names in the last half century, according to Mr. Coplan. A middle school named after President Garfield rechristened itself in 1968 to honor the slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. And in the 1970s, Lincoln Elementary was renamed in memory of Malcolm X, although Mr. Coplan said the name change did not reflect any ill will toward the 16th president.
Most recently, after a 1989 earthquake that battered Columbus Elementary School, the district dropped the name of the Italian explorer from the school's title. "There was no real question about that, because in Berkeley, we don't even celebrate Columbus Day," Mr. Coplan said. Instead, the second Monday in October is reserved for Indigenous People's Day on the Berkeley city calendar.
Remember, these same kinds of people make fun of Christians for being dogmatic and superstitious. |
