SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SilentZ who wrote (161242)2/16/2003 8:12:42 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576180
 
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...