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.
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.
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.