Activist Presidents

JerryLove · 04-05-2007, 07:08 AM

With all the whining the Bush administration does about "activist Judges", he's got quite a track-record of ignoring the will of the people and using any means neccessairy to bypass it when he can.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html

This is only the latest example. With the congress the elected representative of the people, and with an established process that ambassidors are to be approved through congress, and KNOWING that congress will not approve his appointee, he's made an end-run to get in place someone he knows will not pass muster.

This isn't the first time he's pulled exactly this sort of stuff. Why isn't there a huge row in conservative circles about this president openly and repeatedly defying the will of the people?

jfahler03 · 04-05-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Why isn't there a huge row in conservative circles about this president openly and repeatedly defying the will of the people?

Becuase he's been sent by God. And God does what God wants. Got it?

I'm curious to see what the next president does. Can the Dems screw it up even more if they get into office? I personally doubt it... but I don't hold it too far below them.

Insane Drummer · 04-05-2007, 10:39 PM

Because, "appointed X as ambassador to Belgium without senate confirmation" just isn't exciting.

Peatrical · 04-05-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Becuase he's been sent by God. And God does what God wants. Got it?

I'm curious to see what the next president does. Can the Dems screw it up even more if they get into office? I personally doubt it... but I don't hold it too far below them.

You guys need some serious electoral reform....

Insane Drummer · 04-05-2007, 11:02 PM

Leave our corruption alone!

JerryLove · 04-06-2007, 06:04 AM

Obviously this issue itself is pretty minor (come on, what does the ambassidor to Belgium do), but it does show a disdain for the legal process (something oft illustrated by this president), and it does show a rewarding of the SBVfT group Bush avowoed no connection to.

normajean777 · 04-06-2007, 04:09 PM

They should not be arguing about appointees. As long as they are qualified, they should automatically get the job. Jerry you are right it is minor, and more important things should be concentrated on. If we're worried about corruption, ban all lobbying.

JerryLove · 04-06-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

They should not be arguing about appointees. As long as they are qualified, they should automatically get the job.

On what do you base this? Would it be OK to make that guy who defrauded everyone out of thier money with Enron Chairman of the national bank? He's qualified.

Quote:

Jerry you are right it is minor,

The example is minor, the prescedent of a president who willfully makes an end-run around the law is not.

Quote:

and more important things should be concentrated on. If we're worried about corruption, ban all lobbying.

I would love to. But my case was not for corruption, it was for the exact thing that Bush complains judges have been doing.

Of course, if you want the real reason Bush makes that complaint it is because congress was Republican. He must "blame the other guy" and the Judiciary was the only guy left. This is a guy who, according to him, has only ever made the mistake of "appointing some wrong people"

Lightknight · 04-06-2007, 07:49 PM

I don't really care. He got voted in, he got revoted in, and pretty soon he'll be out of office. As far as I'm concerned, the American voters got exactly what they voted for. The president isn't supposed to make every action in conjunction with the direct voice of the people, this is Congress' job. His job is to try to get the things he promised done.

My suggestion is to quit worrying about what Bush is doing (unless it's extreme) and start getting your voting finger in good shape for the next election.

All that aside, dang, that was a very sneaky move by Bush. Impressive even. But nothing extreme compared to things other presidents have done. It's just an ambassador.

That being said, I also think it's ridiculous that the Democrats denied his appointment to that position due to hard feelings towards him. I don't think that's legitimate cause to reject someone's appointment.

jfahler03 · 04-06-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I don't really care. He got voted in, he got revoted in, and pretty soon he'll be out of office. As far as I'm concerned, the American voters got exactly what they voted for. The president isn't supposed to make every action in conjunction with the direct voice of the people, this is Congress' job. His job is to try to get the things he promised done.

Where is the American people's promised ban on abortion or gay marraige?

Quote:

My suggestion is to quit worrying about what Bush is doing (unless it's extreme) and start getting your voting finger in good shape for the next election.

The detainees at Guantanamo is extreme - as is the war in Iraq.

Lightknight · 04-06-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Where is the American people's promised ban on abortion or gay marraige?

I imagine that succeeded with who he appointed to the supreme court. You know, the strongest branch of the government with no real hinderance from the other branches.

Quote:

The detainees at Guantanamo is extreme - as is the war in Iraq.

The point is that the Ambassador issue is completely lame. Why bring this up when there are so many other things that need adressing, like the detainees you mentioned.

tlj009 · 04-09-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

but it does show a disdain for the legal process (something oft illustrated by this president),

Politicians in general seem to have a disdain for the legal process. President is the highest achievement for many politicians. It is not surprising that he would have disdain for the legal process.

Quote:

I imagine that succeeded with who he appointed to the supreme court. You know, the strongest branch of the government with no real hinderance from the other branches.

It is amazing to me that the supreme court has any power at all. It doesn't seem to have been given much by the constitution. Back when it was formed it just gave advice.

Lightknight · 04-09-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlj009

It is amazing to me that the supreme court has any power at all. It doesn't seem to have been given much by the constitution. Back when it was formed it just gave advice.

It declared itself to have the power of "Judicial Review" and everyone listened to it. I, personally, would have backhanded the court and told them to go back to their corner and no one loves them. They practically stole the power of Congress.

tlj009 · 04-09-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

It declared itself to have the power of "Judicial Review" and everyone listened to it. I, personally, would have backhanded the court and told them to go back to their corner and no one loves them. They practically stole the power of Congress.

Yeah, but that was just a chess game. It served their purpose back then, so they let the court have the power. I guess that is politics.

JerryLove · 04-09-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

It declared itself to have the power of "Judicial Review" and everyone listened to it.

Actually, it had to be very careful to make that stick... and it often didn't. When the court declared the Trail of Tears breaking of treaty to be illegal, the president said "let's see them enforce it" and proceeded on.

Quote:

I, personally, would have backhanded the court and told them to go back to their corner and no one loves them. They practically stole the power of Congress.

So congress passes a law and the president ignores it. Now what?

How about this, congress passes a law, by 51% that annulls the constitution. Of course, it's illegal, but who is to say so if the court cannot?