dayman Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) I agree. There is no good reason that the Senate should have to confirm over 500 positions, because government oversight and purview should extend so far that there are over 500 positions to confirm. However, if you insist that the government should justly have such a role, then those 500 positions must adhere to our system of checks and balances, and those 500 duly require Senate confirmation in order to keep any semblance of a democratic or republican system. I would argue that Hamilton saw this a great check promoting judicious choices at the time when the number of confirmed positions was less than the number of guys on a football team. And no doubt he imagined the actual process existing was more the check than an actual down vote which he imagined would be extremely rare. But now...it's just a self defeating mechanism and it doesn't promote our republican system in any credible way to have the entire senate confirm the inspector general of the railroad retirement board. Oh and just be clear I'm not saying do away with it I'm say drastically reduce the positions that need a confirmation to those that are important and worthy of the senate's time...so that the senate may get to it and do it rather than having posts just sit around w/ nobody in them officially. Edited January 26, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Taking after Bman and just posting stuff that everybody who has read a basic article about this story knows? hehe The greater point of the confirmation process is that it is insane at this point. There is absolutely no reason the senate should have to confirm over 500 positions....and regardless of the party in the WH they should be more deferential and just look a qualification, not put stupid holds on nominees for unrelated reasons, and on and on...I mean at any given point there are countless positions in the government some of which are actually important that have no acting official...if that doesn't show how the entire process is broken (broken by both parties obviously) then idk what does.... You really can be a dick. I posted an explanation for everyone including you, since you kept missing the mark in your "lofty" proclamations in criticism of B-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I would argue that Hamilton saw this a great check promoting judicious choices at the time when the number of confirmed positions was less than the number of guys on a football team. And no doubt he imagined the actual process existing was more the check than an actual down vote which he imagined would be extremely rare. But now...it's just a self defeating mechanism and it doesn't promote our republican system in any credible way to have the entire senate confirm the inspector general of the railroad retirement board. Oh and just be clear I'm not saying do away with it I'm say drastically reduce the positions that need a confirmation to those that are important and worthy of the senate's time...so that the senate may get to it and do it rather than having posts just sit around w/ nobody in them officially. You're advocating for a dictatorial Executive. You're aware of that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 You're advocating for a dictatorial Executive. You're aware of that, right? I often end up advocating a strong executive. THe entire nation votes for that spot, whoever is in it becomes the commander in chief and head of teh executive, allow him so staff a bit more of his underlings a little easier. They rarely get rejected anyway they're just bothered and delayed....for God's sake he can reign hell fire from the sky on some guy walking around in a desert halfway around the world I think he can pick a director of womens activities in the labor department... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 i would say that Bman is one of the smarter and more rational of the right leaning posters here. He, like me and Oxrock are also some of the refugees from the "other board". Can we all now stop with the "B word slaps" threads? Here's half the problem. We have two different parties with two vastly different ideologies trying to take the nation in to vastly different directions. Just because "your man" chewed out the member of another party, or a ruling went the way your party wanted it to go doesn't mean you made the other party your B word. It's the system working the way it should. Very gracious of you to say Bfbf, since, as you point out we agree on very little.......................................................other than my rationality...lol You are correct about the "B word slap" silliness also . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I often end up advocating a strong executive. THe entire nation votes for that spot, whoever is in it becomes the commander in chief and head of teh executive, allow him so staff a bit more of his underlings a little easier. They rarely get rejected anyway they're just bothered and delayed....for God's sake he can reign hell fire from the sky on some guy walking around in a desert halfway around the world I think he can pick a director of womens activities in the labor department... That's just it. We don't want no stinkin' Director of Womens Activities in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) That's just it. We don't want no stinkin' Director of Womens Activities in the first place. Then advocate for its deletion? Campaign more specifically and aggressively for getting rid of various departments you don't like? Don't use the appointment process to just !@#$ up something and keep the government that does exist without leadership. Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I often end up advocating a strong executive. THe entire nation votes for that spot, whoever is in it becomes the commander in chief and head of teh executive, allow him so staff a bit more of his underlings a little easier. They rarely get rejected anyway they're just bothered and delayed....for God's sake he can reign hell fire from the sky on some guy walking around in a desert halfway around the world I think he can pick a director of womens activities in the labor department... The fact that he can reign hell fire on a person walking around in the dessert halfway around the world is a pretty good argument for why his power might need to be reigned in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Then advocate for its deletion? Campaign more specifically and aggressively for getting rid of various departments you don't like? Don't use the appointment process to just !@#$ up something and keep the government that does exist without leadership. I was making fun of a job title and how ridiculous things have become with our government-----how far they have gotten away from their limited authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The fact that he can reign hell fire on a person walking around in the dessert halfway around the world is a pretty good argument for why his power might need to be reigned in. Heh...........too true without any due process either. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The fact that he can reign hell fire on a person walking around in the dessert halfway around the world is a pretty good argument for why his power might need to be reigned in. Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? I was making fun of a job title and how ridiculous things have become with our government-----how far they have gotten away from their limited authority. well IDK if that exists or not but something similar probably does...point being that if something should be eliminated then eliminate it don't just sabotage it...what we have we should try to do well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? How do you convince your all powerful executive to give away powers his or her predecessors had? Especially one as fun as an entire robot army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 How do you convince your all powerful executive to give away powers his or her predecessors had? Especially one as fun as an entire robot army? Well we're getting a bit off topic since I'm just saying let whoever gets the job have an easier time staffing his agencies....but to your point....I suppose you elect the guy who runs saying he doesn't like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? I would argue that this is exactly what happened. I agree that it came as a result of a GOP intention to obstruct. But that doesn't necessarily mean the court turned out the wrong decision. Just because it's been going on for over a hundred years without anyone saying about doesn't mean it should continue in the future. The position of POTUS has become vastly more powerful in the past 100 years and every now and then it isn't a bad idea to yank on the leash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? well IDK if that exists or not but something similar probably does...point being that if something should be eliminated then eliminate it don't just sabotage it...what we have we should try to do well I don't disagree with you but I rather doubt you would bring any of this up if it was Bush's appointments. The thing is Obama got a "ruling" from his "very separate DOJ" that he could be King. It didn't fly with the judges. What he (Obama) did was to take things a step further than in the past, but you and others want to claim that the same thing had been going on for many decades. Obama lost this round. Is it so f'n much to fathom that the Messiah could lose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 How do you convince your all powerful executive to give away powers his or her predecessors had? Especially one as fun as an entire robot army? Are you suggesting the the President could be ...Skynet!!??? My god. How did we not see this before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) I don't disagree with you but I rather doubt you would bring any of this up if it was Bush's appointments. The thing is Obama got a "ruling" from his "very separate DOJ" that he could be King. It didn't fly with the judges. What he (Obama) did was to take things a step further than in the past, but you and others want to claim that the same thing had been going on for many decades. Obama lost this round. Is it so f'n much to fathom that the Messiah could lose? Well you are just wrong on that. I can't prove it obviously b/c I don't have a time machine but it's not true. And btw like I said earlier there are many positions that the confirmation process is appropriate for and should be kept, just not 500+ not even close Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Heh...........too true without any due process either. . This is the darkest stain on Obama's administration. No one, not even the president, gets to decide to execute an American citizen without due process. If you do, you need to produce the proof that he is a clear and present danger. Not say "trust me, I saw the intelligence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 How do you convince your all powerful executive to give away powers his or her predecessors had? Especially one as fun as an entire robot army? As a foreigner, you really wouldn't know our history the way a few of us here do. Our "all powerful executive" has seized powers that none of our other "executives" had. His drone therapy for brown, swarthy, suspicious people causes the far left to alternatively come and go. But damn, Gitmo was cruel. Well you are just wrong on that. I can't prove it obviously b/c I don't have a time machine but it's not true. And btw like I said earlier there are many positions that the confirmation process is appropriate for and should be kept, just not 500+ not even close Just like you, focus on what can't be proved and ignore the part of my post that had real substance. Tell me, did Obama do anything with recess appointments that differed in any way with previous presidents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Just like you, focus on what can't be proved and ignore the part of my post that had real substance. Tell me, did Obama do anything with recess appointments that differed in any way with previous presidents? In the courts opinion and it's one thing I do agree with, substantively no. If you want to talk number of days...then it was 3 where more commonly it has been 5 or 10 or so on the close on end... ...and it was really 20 anyway the 3 just accounts for the gavel dropping w/ nobody in the room every 3 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts