Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
No, not fair enough. The Constitution set the ground rules for how the two are supposed to confront and check each other. When one condones activities outside the Constitution's rules, you are advocating a case of "the ends justifies the means" and while that may be the case in any individual situation, it is not how the government should conduct day to day business.
In this case the Executive Branch is obligated by procedure to obtain Senate approval of a person nominated for a federal position of a particular level of importance prescribed in the Constitution. Because of the reality of our nation's economic make up and, and the time to travel from one corner to the other, an exception was made where a vacancy that needed to be filled might arise when Congress was out of session. In this instance the President can make a temporary appointment, subject to Senate confirmation after the fact.
To use this provision to appoint a candidate so clearly not "confirmable" by the Senate that his nomination was withdrawn by the President is not only unethical it is in violation of the spirit, if not exactly the words in the Constitution since even political enemies in those days were honorable enough not to forsee the need to prohibit all the unintended interpretations of those words that might be construed by experts in nothing but distortions of the Constitution's words - modern day lawyers without any ethics, like Gonzales.
Yeah, I support the idea that an overly friendly relationship between Congress and the President is an invitation for corruption and a displacement of the public's interests to the bottom of anyone and everyone's list of priorities. But I don't support the idea that "all is fair in love and war" includes trampling on the specific provisions of the Constitution. Jim