Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Nominates New Librarian of Congress Who Supports Open Access (teleread.com)
Dr. Carla Hayden, CEO of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore and a former president of the American Library Association, is President Obama's nominee for Librarian of Congress. What a contrast to long-time LoC Librarian James Billington, a stuffy old academic who hated e-books and was so far out of touch that he liked faxing more than e-mail. According to President Obama, "Dr. Hayden has devoted her career to modernizing libraries so that everyone can participate in today's digital culture." Dr. Hayden was a fierce opponent of the Patriot Act and believes strongly in speaking out against surveillance. What's more, she would be the 14th Librarian of Congress, in charge of the Copyright Office, and the first woman and first African-American to hold the position.
By stuffing you mean filling in a position open due to unexpected death? How dare Scalia die this year!! Also by stuffing you mean following the Constitution? I also believe that the people already had a say in the matter when they elected Obama to be President.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
We all did have a say. As much as some people hate to admit it, Barack Obama is the current President of the United States, as such, his job is to nominate people who he believes are the best qualified for the job. That is exactly what he is doing with this nomination. If Congress was to do their job, the would approve her based on merit, not some political agenda. If she's an idiot, then sure, don't confirm her, otherwise it is their job to do so.
The president has every right to nominate anyone he wants. And congress has every right to block it.
Maybe we could take this opportunity to express excitement about the incoming librarian rather than shit all over her predecessor. No matter what you thought of the guy, this is not a great time to say it.
Correct. This close to a national election, the people should be allowed to have a say in the matter. Trying to stuff all the positions at the last minute is the height of arrogance.
If the founding fathers had wanted the people's decisions about the presidency to expire after only three years, they would have specified a 3-year term for the president.
They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..
They aren't blocking anything. They are stating their opinion which they have ever right todo.
They have vowed to give no nominee a hearing until the next president is inaugurated. That's not an "opinion" -- that's blocking.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Well they don't actually. The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I do believe that the power of "consent" includes the power to say no.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I think you describe EXACTLY what I mean. Obama and the Democrats didn't try to go all bi-partisan on us with the health care law and choose to force the issue, refusing to allow any amendments or even allow the 2,000 page bill to be read much less vetted by the public, but decided that they had to pass the bill NOW because they where going to loose their democrat only cloture ability in the Senate once Ted Kennedy's replacement from the special election was seated. They literally passed it at the last possible moment ON THEIR OWN, without a single Republican vote and steam rolled the bill into law. How you figure that's the Republicans being obstructionists is beyond me, they couldn't obstruct ANYTHING, and the Democrats used that fact to pass only what they wanted.
What about the debt limit debates? You mean the ones where he started out by pillaging Republicans for destroying the USA's Credit rating? Or where children and old folks would be starving in the streets if we didn't just shut up and go along? Then he gives up this sequester thing? Yea, tell me how effective Obama was in all that.
Tell me when Obama has offered compromise on an issue of importance beyond the sequester? It's all or nothing with him. He talks as if he's a grand unifier, that he's all about working together, but he never makes the first move and his administration always *starts* with the pillaging in the press. He also never chooses to consider the principles that motivate the other side of the debate, but routinely makes disparaging comments, setting up straw men to tear down his opponents. Ever heard that Republicans where Racist? About the "War on Women" or that Republicans want to "throw granny off the cliff?" None of that is a true representation of the Republican position, but they come from his administration.
So, there is really no reason I can see that I'd want to work with a guy like this. It's literally a no win situation for Republicans. It's not that they don't welcome compromise solutions when they are possible, it's just that there are specific principles with which there is not a compromise solution that's possible. Obama doesn't usually compromise on his principles, why do you think the Republicans should?
But the real thing here is that the voters have chosen to put Republicans in control of Congress over the last three election cycles starting in 2010. Not only that, they have chosen Republicans over Democrats in a lot of state and local elections as well. So, I would say that the evidence is that voters don't really want the Republicans to be cooperating with Obama all that much because they keep electing Republicans who are running on "I oppose Obama on..(insert policy/position of choice here)" platforms. If that wasn't working, then you can bet there would be a bit more bargaining going on, but as it stands, you get more votes saying "no" to Obama than you get cooperating with him as a Republican.
Surely you see this for what it is right? This is politics and it's a rough and tumble non-contact sport about getting votes and money to campaign with. Obama plays the game a bit rougher than most and he's not about compromise, but hardball. So the other team is forced to play his choice of games, which because they are now in control of congress and can literally shut him down at will, won't work out so well for Obama. He picked the game back in 2008, now we play it out. Sorry he doesn't like it now.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee.
It's one thing to openly question and discuss the candidate, then reject through a vote. It's bullshit to simply say don't bother because we think it should wait until the next president.
If this was November, I would agree with them. It is February. I believe that the average time to nominate and vote on a potential Supreme Court Justice is around 2 months, a vacant seat has never lasted more than 4 months. And the Republicans want to do nothing for 10 months?
Fuck them. I hope Obama nominates a moderate Republican (if any still exist) or a conservative Democrat (I know a few) just to make them look even more stupid.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
And most of these same people were whining eight years ago that it was unfair when the Democrats pulled this same crap with circuit court nominees. The Democrats caved, and George W. Bush put four circuit court justices on the bench between April and July of his last year.
The Democrats were wrong to try this eight years ago, and the Republicans were right to call it unfair. But that makes the Republican leadership a bunch of hypocritical opportunists for turning right around eight years later and acting like spoiled children.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee. "
Under the Senate powers to advise the President on who gets to sit on the Supreme Court it would appear that they have the authority to advise the President that eight justices is sufficient for the time being. I am not aware of any obligation of the Senate to keep nine justices on the court, it's merely tradition.
1) The Senate takes an oath to uphold the constitution.
2) The Constitution states that the Senate must confirm or reject a Supreme Court nomination.
3) Blocking the appointment by not letting it out of committee for a vote is a violation of #1
But hey, the Constitution also allows the president to make a recess appointment, so unless Congress plans on staying in session each and every day until the next president takes office, well, there could easily be an appointment, albeit temporary. As for eight is enough, it could be, but one would think that the current vacancy shifts the balance to the left and the current Congress would not want that particularly with the cases coming up.
The only reason to explain them violating the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold would be pandering to their constituents -- at least the ones with deep pockets.