That's a mischaracterization. Bush doesn't put his appointments up for a vote. He waits for a recess, appoints them, and thus avoids debate.

Bush really believes in democracy doesn't he?

Example:

President Bush yesterday made a raft of controversial recess appointments, including Julie L. Myers to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau at the Department of Homeland Security, in a maneuver circumventing the need for approval by the Senate.

Myers, a niece of former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Richard B. Myers and the wife of the chief of staff to Homeland Se...

read more»

That's a mischaracterization. Bush doesn't put his appointments up for a vote. He waits for a recess, appoints them, and thus avoids debate.

Bush really believes in democracy doesn't he?

Example:

President Bush yesterday made a raft of controversial recess appointments, including Julie L. Myers to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau at the Department of Homeland Security, in a maneuver circumventing the need for approval by the Senate.

Myers, a niece of former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Richard B. Myers and the wife of the chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, had been criticized by Republicans and Democrats who charged that she lacked experience in immigration matters.

Myers's nomination faced a bruising and potentially embarrassing fight on the Senate floor, where Democrats were prepared to argue that politics, not merit, drove her selection for an important job preventing terrorists and weapons from entering the country.

How many is ssoooooo many? That's hardly a statistic. That's spin.

You didn't visit the article. He is purposely holding back putting forth nominations to avoid debate. If they are debated it's embarrassing for him so he appoints them under the cover of darkness.

Here's some comparison between Republican obstructionism during the Clinton administration and the supposed "obstructionism" now. Link

The Clinton Years

Conservative accusations of unwarranted Democratic stalling ring particularly hollow in light of the Republican record on judicial confirmations during President Clinton's terms in o...

read more»

How many is ssoooooo many? That's hardly a statistic. That's spin.

You didn't visit the article. He is purposely holding back putting forth nominations to avoid debate. If they are debated it's embarrassing for him so he appoints them under the cover of darkness.

Here's some comparison between Republican obstructionism during the Clinton administration and the supposed "obstructionism" now. Link

The Clinton Years

Conservative accusations of unwarranted Democratic stalling ring particularly hollow in light of the Republican record on judicial confirmations during President Clinton's terms in office. The refusal and delay of hearings on dozens of former President Clinton's nominees to federal courts by the Republican-led Senate from 1995 to 2000 exacerbated a widespread shortage of federal judges.

In fact, in the last five years of the Clinton presidency, Republicans blocked 20% of the nominees submitted to the Senate. In President Bush's first three years, only 3.4% of judicial nominees have been rejected. Already, the Senate has confirmed thirty Bush circuit court nominees—this is a greater number than President Clinton was allowed in his two full terms in office.

Overall judicial vacancies have decreased since the current President took office, from a rate of 9.9% to the current 4.6%. Still, Administration officials and Republican Senators bemoan that six of the President's nominees have not received an “up or down vote” from the full Senate

And then it's not only Democrats but Republicans obstruct Bush's nominees if they don't tow the ultra-conservative line. What a joke. Link.

From the second of the two linked articles in the previous comment.

It’s also interesting the way in which GOP lawmakers will be so selective in applying their deeply-held beliefs. They say every presidential nominee deserves an up-or-down vote, except when Republicans decide they deserve no such thing. They say it’s wrong — and possibly even unconstitutional — to use Senate procedure to interfere with the nominating process, except when Republicans feel like utilizing those same procedures. They say it’s wrong when Dems apply an ideological litmus test to Bush nominees, but it’s fine when Republicans apply their own litmus tests to different Bush nominees.

We’re deali...

read more»

From the second of the two linked articles in the previous comment.

It’s also interesting the way in which GOP lawmakers will be so selective in applying their deeply-held beliefs. They say every presidential nominee deserves an up-or-down vote, except when Republicans decide they deserve no such thing. They say it’s wrong — and possibly even unconstitutional — to use Senate procedure to interfere with the nominating process, except when Republicans feel like utilizing those same procedures. They say it’s wrong when Dems apply an ideological litmus test to Bush nominees, but it’s fine when Republicans apply their own litmus tests to different Bush nominees.

We’re dealing with people of principles. Weak, malleable, and easily-forgotten principles.

Who the heck is "moving ideas"? and it's from 4 yrs. ago.

This Democratic-controlled Congress has held up the President's nominees in a way that is unpresidented. He has put forth many nominees. I'm not going to list them all; they're out there for anyone who wants to do the research. Vote them 'yes'/'no'. But no way! Instead, they choose to hold them up with investigations, committee evaluations, Congressional debates, etc. The entire 7 1/2 yrs of this President's administration has been about stalemating and hampering his ability to govern. It's not about what is best for the Country. It's about the most blatant and debilitating efforts to undermine the democratically-elected Pres...

Who the heck is "moving ideas"? and it's from 4 yrs. ago.

This Democratic-controlled Congress has held up the President's nominees in a way that is unpresidented. He has put forth many nominees. I'm not going to list them all; they're out there for anyone who wants to do the research. Vote them 'yes'/'no'. But no way! Instead, they choose to hold them up with investigations, committee evaluations, Congressional debates, etc. The entire 7 1/2 yrs of this President's administration has been about stalemating and hampering his ability to govern. It's not about what is best for the Country. It's about the most blatant and debilitating efforts to undermine the democratically-elected President.

Yes, sure; Reid wants the President to grant Congress the *right* to negotiate the appointments. Vote them up or down. Just do it. But hey....they still have a few more months to stall.

Much of the reason Bush is being unsuccessful is because he doesn't consult Democrats before submitting an appointment. This happens even in states where the balance of power is equally, Democratic and Republican, and the Senators of the state put forth their suggestions. Bush ignores them and submits his own choices disregarding tradition. (How typical of Bush).

Some insights from Congressional Quarterly (a publication you may be familiar with, if not check the "About Us" link).

For Bush to get many more of his nominees through this Congress, he would have to reach an accommodation with some Democrats at least. Instead, h...

Much of the reason Bush is being unsuccessful is because he doesn't consult Democrats before submitting an appointment. This happens even in states where the balance of power is equally, Democratic and Republican, and the Senators of the state put forth their suggestions. Bush ignores them and submits his own choices disregarding tradition. (How typical of Bush).

Some insights from Congressional Quarterly (a publication you may be familiar with, if not check the "About Us" link).

For Bush to get many more of his nominees through this Congress, he would have to reach an accommodation with some Democrats at least. Instead, he has gone in the opposite direction and ignored Democrats in making his choices, in effect daring them to block the nominations.

That is the case even when members of Bush’s own party are involved in making recommendations. In Virginia, he passed over five potential circuit court nominees proposed by veteran Republican Sen. John W. Warner and Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and picked a Richmond lawyer, E. Duncan Getchell, whom the two senators had rejected.

Bush’s reluctance to consult with Democrats makes it likely that few, if any, nominees from a state represented by a Democratic senator are going to receive a confirmation vote. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont is observing the Senate’s “blue slip” tradition in which a judicial nomination does not advance without the approval of both home-state senators. Webb, for instance, says he will not return his blue slip on Getchell.

Balance of powers issue here. Just asking....is the President obligated to 'consult' Congress before he make nominations? I thought that was the President's (no matter Dem/Rep) option.

What was done in the Clinton Administration is suppose to make it *OK* with what is happening now??

Free us from the tit-for-tat. Will this get us anywhere?

I remember the Clinton years; I was there. The President, then, tied up his Administration with other *stuff*. Don't blame anyone except *himself* for the distractions during his Administration. *HE* put his Presidency *on hold* while the American public and Congress had to determine whether he was legally *fit* for the office. (that's a side is...

Balance of powers issue here. Just asking....is the President obligated to 'consult' Congress before he make nominations? I thought that was the President's (no matter Dem/Rep) option.

What was done in the Clinton Administration is suppose to make it *OK* with what is happening now??

Free us from the tit-for-tat. Will this get us anywhere?

I remember the Clinton years; I was there. The President, then, tied up his Administration with other *stuff*. Don't blame anyone except *himself* for the distractions during his Administration. *HE* put his Presidency *on hold* while the American public and Congress had to determine whether he was legally *fit* for the office. (that's a side issue; long gone)

Reid is tying up the process of our government to stall everything the current President puts forth...completely for *political* reason...nothing more.

The Republicans chose to tie up business not Clinton. That was a witch hunt and you are in the minority easily on that issue. The rest of the country saw it for what it was. That's why Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of modern day Presidents (Ronnie Raygun included). Sorry that's already been decided, I was there also.

You seem to forget that Bush claimed he was a "uniter" but that is obviously a lie. He has his own agenda come hell or highwater, tradition (that makes Congress work) be damned.

And since you mentioned it, yes the President is suppose to seek advise and consent on Judicial nominees so when he goes behind Congress's back and uses recess appointees he...

The Republicans chose to tie up business not Clinton. That was a witch hunt and you are in the minority easily on that issue. The rest of the country saw it for what it was. That's why Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of modern day Presidents (Ronnie Raygun included). Sorry that's already been decided, I was there also.

You seem to forget that Bush claimed he was a "uniter" but that is obviously a lie. He has his own agenda come hell or highwater, tradition (that makes Congress work) be damned.

And since you mentioned it, yes the President is suppose to seek advise and consent on Judicial nominees so when he goes behind Congress's back and uses recess appointees he is avoiding what he is suppose to do. The Constitution requires Legislative oversight of the Executive Branch.

I know the Constitution is pesky for some Republicans but it shouldn't be used as toilet paper.

Bush can free us from the "tit for tat" by putting forth judicial nominees that have been approved by Senators who come from the district the judges will preside in, especially when the Senators are from different parties and working in a bipartisan manner.