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.

Comments

Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The president has every right to nominate anyone he wants. And congress has every right to block it.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[ClickOnThis]

The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.

Congress does not yet have a SCOTUS nominee of which to disapprove. They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[bobbied]

This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.

Joe? Joe Biden is that you? I remember what you said back in '92... Sounds a lot like you.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.

No, there is nothing wrong with congress voting to disapprove of the nomination, there is everything wrong with not voting on it.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[ClickOnThis]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.

Indeed. I'm far from a liberal myself but I'm actually looking forward to seeing Bernie Sanders nominate our first black transgender socialist to the high court. Maybe then the blow-hards in Congress will finally understand why stone-walling everything Obama does is just not a good idea. But I guess they will have to learn this the hard way. *Sigh!*

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

there is everything wrong with not voting on it.

WRONG

The founding fathers also intended Congress to determine it's own procedures. These procedures give congress the right to not vote on it. If the president doesn't like it he has every right to go fuck himself.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[fiannaFailMan]

Well they don't actually. The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They disapprove for greedy, selfish reasons not because nominations aren't qualified for the job. I wish the higher level of governments had far less restrictions on corruption laws. People at those levels should know what they're supposed to be doing and if they try to get around that they should go to jail.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[bobbied]

The US constitution does not specify the factors upon which the Senate may "advise and consent" on a presidential nomination any more than it specifies qualifications the president must consider. Nor is there a specified time frame within which they must act upon a nomination as long as they are in session. The president may nominate anybody he chooses and the Senate then decides what to do with the nomination. It literally takes two sides (two branches) working together to get somebody confirmed.

Of course, depending on your political perspective, there may be moral and ethical questions to address when choosing what specific course of action (or inaction) to take....

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[blindseer]

I do believe that the power of "consent" includes the power to say no.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They have vowed to give no nominee a hearing until the next president is inaugurated. That's not an "opinion" -- that's blocking.

WRONG

The constitution gives congress the right to determine it's own procedures. They have every right block this.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually treason - failing their oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the USA.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[fsckinhippies]

Where does the constitution obligate them to approve someone? What if it was the only person nominated? Well I guess that has to do? No way! THis isn't the first time that this has happened. It is just when the shoe is on the other foot, people want to bitch and moan.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[mschuyler]

The fact is that in the last 100 years the ONLY time a SCOTUS nominee has been voted down is by Democrats. Not only that, Obama himself participated in a fillibuster of a Bush nominee when he was a Senator. Joe Biden and other Democrats have also been against nominees from Republicans in similar circumstances as the one we find today.

You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... All Democrats. All the time.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

fail

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Article I of the constitution gives them every right to block this.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG

How the fuck you can be so wrong on the founding fathers is beyond me.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[elrous0]

You mean just like the Democratic Congress respected Ronald Reagan's nominee, Robert Bork?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. I don't think anybody would expect anything else from an obstructionist chunk of Congress that spends half its time trying to repeal a single health care bill and the other half trying to drive the country over a fiscal cliff. But they don't get to pretend like they're not being obstructionist twats about it by lying about historical precedent or pretending like Obama's opposition to Alito is in any way similar to the current opposition to literally anyone that Obama nominates.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[elrous0]

The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.

This guy might be able to correct you on that mistaken assumption.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[bobbied]

The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.

Congress does not yet have a SCOTUS nominee of which to disapprove. They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..

True, but they are blocking nothing right now. There is no nomination to consider because the president hasn't made one yet and they cannot block the president from naming his nominee when he's ready. So they've not done anything wrong in anybody's book yet, they are just threatening to not take up any nominations the president may make.

Think about it this way. It's a political move. The Republicans are really just thinking ahead by making this announcement. First, they apply political pressure to Obama to nominate a consensus nominee, somebody even the Republicans would find acceptable. Second, they defuse this political bomb at a time of their own choosing, right now rather than closer to the election where it can possibly hurt them. By the time we get to the election campaigns in late summer, this will be old news as will the "you are the party of NO!" charge related to it. Third, it placates their base. Most of these people are in congress having run on opposing Obama's policies and they know that any highly visible opposition to Obama will play well to their voters. Forth, it really doesn't matter. The ONLY way they can placate Obama is to totally just accept what he wants to do and rubber stamp whomever he nominates. Anything short of that brings out the flame throwers and their condemnation by Obama and his supporters and actually doing hearings would only fan the flames. Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation, so their best choice is to get it over with as soon as they can. All this says, preemptively say you won't take up a nomination.

But remember that Obama is playing politics here with the process too. He's ready to bring out the flame throwers and use the bully pulpit of the president to brow beat the Republicans. He knows his nominee will be DOA in the Senate and instead of working with the Senate to obtain their consent, he's going to unleash the "Do nothing congress" complaint like he's done many times in the past. Go back to the budget fights of the past, what did Obama say then? Go back to most of the major conflicts Obama has had with congress, the play book is the same with variations on the "They won't work with me and be reasonable" theme...

So, in a way, this is Obama's doing. There is nothing to gain by cooperating with him in any way. He's made it clear that anything short of full surrender is unacceptable and has rarely attempted to work out a compromise on anything. Plus, if you oppose him, he will pillage you in the press and use the bully pulpit to punish you. He's made it a no win situation too many times, so nobody will work with him.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not just like that, because they actually had a specific nominee with a position to scrutinize, and they actually did have a vote regarding him. Republicans are vowing not to have a vote. There's not even a candidate on the table, they're just saying, "No, we won't even offer advice and consent." It's absolute obstructionist insanity, as is par for the course of late.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[605dave]

The people did have a say in the matter, they elected the president for a four year term. The term doesn't end just because some people can't wait for it to happen. There is nothing in the constitution that says the powers of the president wane in their last year.

What's maddening is that this is exactly the argument the Republicans made 10 years ago when Bush was in office and the Dems held the Senate. Who in the end confirmed 3 justices to the Supreme Court for Bush.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[david_thornley]

So you have to go back to the 80s? The Democratic Congress rejected Bork, and then confirmed Kennedy, Reagan's next nominee (well, the next one that didn't get disqualified for smoking pot, not such a disqualification nowadays), without a dissenting vote. I'm not saying that the Senate has to rubber-stamp Obama's pick, but that the Senate should not unduly obstruct the process. Some Senators have said they will refuse to confirm any Obama appointee, which is an entirely different thing.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it make you feel better if they went through the theater of having a bunch of hearings where they pretended they weren't going to vote his nominee down no matter who they are?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They disapprove for greedy, selfish reasons not because nominations aren't qualified for the job.

They have the right to disapprove for what ever reason they choose. If you like that, you have every right to go fuck yourself.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bork got an "up or down vote". Will Obama's nominee even get that far?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Utter fucking nonsense. Remember when there was a Democratic majority in Congress, and Obama tried to negotiate with Republicans on a health care bill that he could have just as well passed without them? Remember the changes made for their sake, including removal of single payer? Remember how EVERY SINGLE Republican voted against the bill that they negotiated and then a huge bloc of them spent every waking moment trying to repeal it and fight it in court?

Remember the debt limit debates?

If Obama has given up on cooperation, it's because Republicans have shown themselves unwilling to even try to compromise. Obama could create a bill whose entire text is, "Terrorism is bad," and Republicans would block it.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They fought his nomination on merits and won. He was quite extreme in several of his views although not all that unlike Scalia. That ignores the fact that Republicans are blocking any nominee so this is a very different scenario.

This is exactly why so much of the country is angry with Congress. Go ahead and be hyper critical, that is their right. To block the process entirely is both counter productive and morally reprehensible. Completely unsurprising though since Mcconnell already stated his sole purpose was to make Obama a one term President which he failed miserably at because it was wrong and blatantly so. He should be ashamed of himself at this point.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't similar circumstances because they are rejecting any nominee, not a specific one.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which the constitution grants Congress the right to do.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do they disapprove of? Has there been any specific public statement like an actual vote to confirm any media statements?

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

Your a bit naive.

The nomination process is pretty taxing for those nominated. They have to prepare their financial records, go through a vetting process that examines not only their public life but often personal life with a lot of question and answer sessions. They have to have meetings with everyone on the Senate judicial comity and basically interview for the post. In most cases they quit their existing jobs because of the amount of time involved and of course there is always the chance of their name being drug through the mud very loudly and very personaly.

It is not like joining the eagles club or anything. So why put someone through this if you already know you will not confirm them? The chances are slim to none that someone acceptable will be nominated because Obama will try to create a political show of it. The most prudent way of dealing with it is to declare no votes will be taken so no one gets their hopes up and suffers the motions unnecessarily.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Article I of the constitution says you're a moron.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[ClickOnThis]

Then we agree: the Republican-controlled congress is blocking. So, not wrong.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[rsborg]

This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.

You know the unsaid GOP Congresscritters' words: This should be left up to the next elected president if that person is a Republican . Believe you me, if Sanders or Clinton get elected, they'll find yet another reason to move their goalposts.

Best way to win is not to play their game: Recess time!

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

It would make me feel better if they weren't obstructionists. The point of the reply wasn't that we'd be better off if obstructionists engaged in political theater. The point was that it's disingenuous to act like saying, "We refuse to vote on any nominee you present ever," is the same as saying, "We do not approve this specific nominee. Send us someone else."

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

As they blocked the last two. Oh right they didn't because asshole.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG Moron!

The president hasn't nominated anyone the SCOTUS yet. They are not blocking anyone.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[cayenne8]

Actually obama may have actually done one nomination of a person that might actually be helpful to the US.

I guess one in 7+ years isn't what you would call *bad*...is it?

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[blindseer]

How is this entirely different than what then Senator Joe Biden did in 1992?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[ClickOnThis]

If you stand in front of a doorway and vow not to let me pass, then you're blocking my entry. I don't have to actually try to enter to make it so.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your point exactly? Congress has every right to approve or block a nominee for what ever reason they choose.

If you don't like their reason you have every right to go fuck yourself.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you attemp to walk though you are not blocked. But you are too much of a moron to understand that.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[bobbied]

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.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US constitution does not specify the factors upon which the Senate may "advise and consent" on a presidential nomination any more than it specifies qualifications the president must consider. Nor is there a specified time frame within which they must act upon a nomination as long as they are in session.

Right, but this new trick of staying in session when they all (nearly) go on vacation is clearly ignoring the intent of the constitution. It's a new trick and it's very underhanded.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[sysrammer]

"Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation"

So, I guess now we can get rid of that old "Obama got Osama" meme. Although "Obama got Scalia" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the founding fathers had wanted the people's decisions about the presidency to expire after only four years, they would have specified a 5 -year term for the president.

FTFY.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Ogive17]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.

Of what exactly? Of the President nominating someone to the high court in his last year in office? There is nothing in the Constitution barring him from doing that. In fact, there is plenty of precedent for Presidents to do this. It's happened many times before already. I could understand if the President had put forward a specific nominee and, after having questioned the candidate thoroughly, they decided to say no. But that is not what is happening. The Republicans in the Senate have said that they will not consider any nominee put forward by this President. That is not "advise and consent"; that is stone-walling. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would blanch at that interpretation of "advise and consent". Just sayin'.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee.

Which they have every right to do. If you don't like that you are welcome to go fuck yourself.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's righteous when democrats do it but evil when republicans do it.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also nothing in the constitution barring congress from blocking the presidents nomination.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[blindseer]

"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.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that to be a very weird argument. So what your saying is that because someone did something you disapprove of, then it's OK for that to become the norm? Is that really your argument?

I agree that what bidden pulled back in '92 was wrong, and I continue to think it is wrong. Hence, I disapprove of it being applied, yet again.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[penandpaper]

Is it blocking even before any nominee has been named? Or is it political posturing?

The congress can set its own procedures and has every right to reject any nomination for any reason. Nothing is stopping Obama from nominating anyone besides political theater on both sides.

Using the word "blocking" to describe this situation distorts reality to your bias. Another way to describe the situation: The advice from the Senate is "we don't want you to choose, better wait till after the election." and are refusing their consent. Which aligns well within constitutional limits of the Senates power. "Blocking", is a very poor description of what is happening.

Political posturing during an election year? You don't say.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they don't actually. The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.

Well, not per se.

The seperation of powers works to preclude the branches of government from gutting each other. Take Kansas (please!) where the legislature and executive just backed down on their statute defunding the judiciary branch if the judiciary ruled against another attempt by the executive and legislature to legislate a violation of the state constitution. A two-year crisis ended mere weeks ago.

If the Senate is blocked by a minority, the rule change known as the "nuclear option" can be had with 51 votes. That ends the filibuster. A vote on a nominee could be passed with 51 votes.

What has been going on has fostered a vast, and growing, dislike of the Congress and the Judiciary. The abrogation of the Paris Accord by an unprecedented act of the SCOTUS two weeks ago is just the last in a long list of outrageous acts of judicial activism (Go read both parties briefs and both sets of arguments in the double-briefed/ twice-argued Citizens United v. FEC matter - the case that the Court decided was never heard in any lower court. After that square the 9th and 10th Amendments with Bush v. Gore for me.) and a do-nothing Congress that is the best money can buy.

The price of civilization is a just legal system and a just political system. Most of the voters (and, more of the general population) are madder than any time since the Viet Nam war. Trump is playing the low information voters like a cheap fiddle (Thank You Mr. Murdoch - you reap what you sowed) and the center-left is looking at your standard FDR Democrat as if he's some kind of demon from hell - while the Eisenhower Republican known as HRC is thrashing to make traction.

No, the Senate may not sustain the nominee for the Librarian of Congress, or the (eventual) nominee for the SCOTUS - but, the price that failure to act will carry may be too high to pay.

For myself, I am ticked that the President didn't drop a recess appointment into the opening as soon as the justice was declared dead. It would have avoided a long battle and a ton of 4:4 votes while the Senate roiled. But, that's why Democrats lose to the "act first - never think" bought-and-paid-for party. Before the rest of the Reds (yes, you folks adopted the term "red state" and that makes you "Reds" where I come from) go off on me consider that this nation is in its longest war, with no reasonable end in sight, has adopted extra-judicial indefinite imprisonment, and has played out every single scenario that H. Ross Perot said would occur - under both major parties.

The first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one - stop digging!

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in a way, this is Obama's doing. There is nothing to gain by cooperating with him in any way. He's made it clear that anything short of full surrender is unacceptable and has rarely attempted to work out a compromise on anything. Plus, if you oppose him, he will pillage you in the press and use the bully pulpit to punish you. He's made it a no win situation too many times, so nobody will work with him.

Help! I'm not able to surrender and I just can't stop beating up on that guy! It's his fault! Bobbied says so.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which the constitution grants Congress the right to do.

Show me where. The Senate must "advise and consent" not promise to reject any and all, as yet, unnamed nominee(s).

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

Of course, since the constitution only allows the president to work for 3 years out of 4. So says the congress that works for 0 years out of 4.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this entirely different than what then Senator Joe Biden did in 1992?

What Supreme Court justice died or sent notice to resign in 1992? Much less June 1992, not February 1992.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

When the shoe has been on the other foot, congress has eventually approved someone prior to the Bork nomination. Even with Scalia the Democrat majority congress approved him after a token amount of discussion. Bork was sort of an anomaly in some ways (after a hard nosed Scalia they didn't want someone even more extreme). After that there were fights but we got nominees approved.

The only reason for the pushback now has nothing to do with the nominee or the constitution. We have pushback now because the election is so close. Republicans feel that they'll be able to get a Republican president if they can only hold out. If they're this reluctant with Obama imagine what they'll be like with Hillary or Bernie... Or Trump... And then there's all the tweets and such going around that we're just one justice away from reppealing everyone's rights and other tea party lunacy.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

If congress does not approve because the person is unqualified, then that is fair. If congress does not approve because of politics, then that is legal but it is not necessarily fair and the people are most certainly allowed to criticize congress harshly over that. Congress does not have to approve, but on the other hand we do not have to shut up about it.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[KGIII]

Yes. Their job obligates them to approve a nomination. It does not obligate them to approve *any* nomination. They, the people who are claiming they will obstruct, should actually give a fair hearing to any/all nominations. And I mean real fair, not "fair." Failing to do so is failing to do their duty. However, they're not required to approve any nomination offered - just a nomination.

Unfortunately, they've now tainted this process. Anyone who is nominated is going to be assumed to have been excluded because of obstruction as opposed to valid reasons. I mean, c'mon... There's a SLIM chance that it is for valid reasons. It could happen. Now, no matter what, even if they had a good reason to decline the nominee, folks will just chalk it up to obstruction.

Meh, par for course. Welcome to America. Can I take your order please?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[KGIII]

That might be true BUT it isn't really constructive. If destructive is your goal then at least be honest about it.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

I would feel better if they had hearings followed by a vote, even if the vote was no. That's what we pay them for, they should do their jobs. If they want to boycott the process of government then they can do it on their own time.

They won't do that though because they know they'll look slightly better to the voters if they just obstruct things than if they held a hearing where the public could see that the applicant was qualified and then they voted no anyway. It's too close to an election so they can't rely on the public's short term memory loss.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

You mean congress will try to create a political show of it. Oh wait, they already have started...

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

And Scalia was nominated by Reagan and got a pass. So did Rehnquist but then again he was just changing his seating position.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

Although McConnell seems to be succeeding at his goal of making Obama a two term president only.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing improper about a preemptive "no" vote. People are just unaccustomed to seeing Republicans actually exercising power.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[KGIII]

My statement reeks of a logical fallacy. The excluded middle... In theory, destructive is not necessarily your goal. However, I'm going to stick with it and say that it is the presumable goal - as all evidence seems to point in that direction. So, it may appear to be fallacious but I'm gonna stick with it.

I'd counter my post with, "Facts not in evidence!" I'd rebut with citations of the Republicans being destructive. As I play the potentially ensuing debate in my head, I'm pretty sure I can point out a trend and suggest that it's reasonable to conclude that destructive is the goal. While it's true that one must break a few eggs to make an omelet, you don't break 'em, throw the shells in, and then kill the chicken. True, you get an omelet but you've got an omelet that nobody wants to eat.

Note to self: A little less weed before posting to Slashdot... I blame my neighbor.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Darinbob]

Of course, they'll declare that Clinton or Sanders will be a one term president only. Then within a few months start shouting for impeachment hearings on the basis that the president is a poopie head. When that dies down it will be midterm elections and so they can't possibly allow any consideration of nominees that close to an election.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[KGIII]

I'm a wee bit stoned but I just thought about it...

Can you imagine if you were nominated? I think the very first words out of my mouth would be expletives and then I'd close the door, hang up the phone, or whatever. Hell no... I don't even have any real skeletons in my closet and I'd not even go through that. I've done some kind of bad things but nothing I hide, I learned a lesson and moved on. I can't even begin to imagine what this must look like, internally, for the nominee. Seriously, fuck that.

I can just imagine what my friends would tell 'em for their own amusement. It was bad enough getting security clearance. They somehow found people that I don't even keep in contact with.

Fortunately, there's zero chance of my being nominated for *any* position. I did get nominated for a town position (selectman) not all that long ago but I am ineligible. I sure as shit didn't want that job and I'll be damned if I'd want to be on the SCOTUS. Hell, I don't even use my moderation points. No, that's just way too invasive for me. I really don't think I could stand the process, media, dredging through my past when I'll just tell ya what I did, and all that sort of crap. Hell no... At least I'm pretty sure they'd never nominate me for such a position. They'd have to be pretty damned stupid to do so.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[blindseer]

"So what your saying is that because someone did something you disapprove of, then it's OK for that to become the norm? Is that really your argument?"

I neither approve or disapprove of this tactic, it is merely one means by which the party that controls the US Senate may assure that they have a justice that they find suited for the position. I merely wish to see the tactic applied equally. If election season SCOTUS appointments should be verboten then it should remain that way regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are advising the president that the nomination should come after the election because it is an election year. Sounds like they are refusing their consent for a nominee. How is that not "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

For Clinton maybe but honestly do you blame them? Hillary is just... ugh.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Ogive17]

Of course it is their right to do nothing, they've been doing that for 7 plus years now. The precedent they are setting is terrible. What if a republican president takes office but democrats take the Senate? Can they just ignore any nominees for 4 years?

Politics is running this country, not any of the boogie men the current crop of candidates want us to blame.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Ogive17]

Ruining. . That's what I get for replying from my phone.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[bugs2squash]

It would be nice if it sparked a public conversation on the role and value of opposition in politics.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats started it with Bork and they'll support the same thing if they control Congress, at which time some people will suddenly be okay with it.

You seem to be assuming that they have to consent to somebody. They do not.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[voss]

Actuallt Robert Bork got his vote and was rejected 42-58...nice try though,
They have to hold a vote on whether to approve a nomination, however they can reject it.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

I mean every congress makes a show of it. A show so bad that judicial nominees has have declined their own nomination as far back as Levi Lincoln sr. Under James Madison (one of the founding fathers ) and as recently as Douglas H. Ginsburg under Reagan.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

I think it would be neat to have a position on the court but I wouldn't want to go through the process either.

Speaking of a bit stoned though, Reagan had a nomination who decline to be nominated because he smoked weed with his students as a professor. Something that likely wouldn't ever realistically impact his ability to do the job.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, since the constitution only allows the president to work for 3 years out of 4. So says the congress that works for 0 years out of 4.

Burn!

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[pnutjam]

Actually, the senate is beholden to Congress. Congress says how many justices and they have pegged it at nine.

Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?
Have there always been nine? The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you attemp to walk though you are not blocked. But you are too much of a moron to understand that.

You can't be serious. Just admit you were wrong.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

It might interest you to know that at least 6 other times in or history the Senate has failed to vote on a supreme court justice as early as John Quincy Adams' appointment of John J. Crittenden in 1828 . Furthermore on about 8 different occasions the nomination was withdrawn before a vote was ever taken.

They demonstrably do not have to hold a vote on the nomination.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite the screed.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Dcnjoe60]

"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.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[davester666]

This should be left up to the next elected Republican president.

FTFY.

Of course, the way the R's handle the whole nomination process seems to point towards it being quite some time before one will actually get elected. They have to say and do bat-shit crazy stuff to satisfy various parts of their party, and then during the general election, when those same things are played back, it turns a bunch of people off as well as getting the candidate to soft-pedal those things, which simultaneously gets those fringe-elements out in force demanding that they double-down on them.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Dcnjoe60]

The Democrats started it with Bork and they'll support the same thing if they control Congress, at which time some people will suddenly be okay with it.

You seem to be assuming that they have to consent to somebody. They do not.

No, the Democrats allowed the hearings to proceed. The Republicans are saying they will not even hold the hearings. There is a difference.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Dcnjoe60]

Where does the constitution obligate them to approve someone? What if it was the only person nominated? Well I guess that has to do? No way! THis isn't the first time that this has happened. It is just when the shoe is on the other foot, people want to bitch and moan.

Article II

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[silentcoder]

Ron Paul spent thirty years earning a congressman's salary while doing nothing more than give elloquent speeches to taxpayers telling them how its a good thing if he never does the job they pay him to do. Libertarians may be sincere (if deluded) but libertarian politicians are running the ultimate lazy get-out-of-work scam. I suppose the libertarian voters got their wish: an entire congress has been slacking off for 8 years and telling the world how not doing their job is their job....

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[silentcoder]

Obama made sure ?!
Did he have Scalia murdered ? Or is this a case of shit happens and adults deal with shit happening constructively. Destructively or obstructively is prerogative of 2-year-olds.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Phantom of the Opera]

Of course, Obama has every right to make a recess appointment if those chuckleheads can't get their act together. Looks like the next recess long enough may be in April ( http://www.senate.gov/legislat... ). If they don't hold any hearings, they might not get a say at all as to the next Justice.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Might want to lay off the Fox News drivel. Here's what he actually said:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

And further clarified because partisan hacks like you keep taking his words out-of-context (Oh, Fox wouldn't do *that*, would they?):

"Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today."

Seriously, turn off Fox and grow a brain.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means they have given their advice and not consent. You seem to think that the US Constitution was created to make government efficient. Apparently your education completely failed you in the area of history.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[tao]

Exactly! This close to the election every senator and representative who is up for election should should proposing / voting on bills! Riiiiight?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[silentcoder]

Nah, the republicans won't block the appointment of a librarian, none of their voters care about libraries after all, those are for people who know what books are.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Republicans are in this spot precisely because they haven't been doing enough to get in the way. The whole tea party was an insurrection against the Republicans, not the Democrats, because they were going along with the Democrats too much.

There is zero chance of this in an election year, in this context.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Jason Levine]

McConnell keeps calling Obama a "lame duck President", but I don't think he knows what that term means. Traditionally, the "lame duck" portion of a President's term begins when the next President is elected. McConnell seems to want it to be from when the election cycle begins. Since our election cycles seem to begin earlier and earlier, it would mean that a President would be a lame duck after only two years in office. How long until a President would only get a year of actually doing stuff before the opposing party said "It's too close to the election, we need to wait for the people to decide"? And lest anyone think that I'm just blaming the Republicans, I'm under no illusions that the Democrats wouldn't use this themselves if this goes through.

Right now, McConnell and the Republicans are acting like Obama is on his way out, but we still don't even have final nominees for the next President. We're nowhere close to the election and Obama should be allowed to do his job until then - not be blocked because the opposing party thinks they might win the Presidency next. What if Sanders or Clinton is nominated? Will they insist that there will be no nomination hearings until "the people decide again... and this time make the right decision"?

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[bobbied]

This is not about "fair" or "qualified" according to the US Constitution. In fact, there is no specific criteria outlined at all. The process is the president nominates who he wants and the Senate can do what they want with it, including not taking up the nomination if they choose. That's what the Constitution says, so drop the "fair" and "qualified" criteria as they don't exist. What DOES exist is that the two branches must AGREE that the nominee is acceptable. If Obama want's to nominate a candidate that the Republicans can not refuse to confirm because the nominee is exactly what they want, something tells me they'd put the confirmation process on the fast track....

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[bobbied]

"Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation"

So, I guess now we can get rid of that old "Obama got Osama" meme. Although "Obama got Scalia" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Straw man argument you know. You imply something I've never said. Scalia died of natural causes...

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

we already had our say, in 2012.
or do you think our decision is only valid for X% of the president's actual term of office?
cause if you do, you're an idiot.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Senate has every right to block it.
But last time I check McConnell isn't the entire Senate, but just one member.
And blocking an up/down vote is rather irresponsible.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[KGIII]

Yeah, that was kind of odd and disappointing but things were a bit different back then. I want to say the guy's name was "Bork." Heh... That was a long time ago. I was doing my first four years and would reenlist not long after.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

because a permanently deadlocked court is in the interests of the country?
you're a fool

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

if they disapprove, they can do it officially, with a vote.

all I see is one or two powerful members blocking the other 99 from voting.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

2) The Constitution states that the Senate must confirm or reject a Supreme Court nomination.

The Constitution does not say this. Go read Article 2 Clause 2

Debate of the nominee or a vote is not a requirement. If the Senate doesn't put the nomination up to a vote then that means they do not consent.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just call someone naive right before chalking up current Republican behavior to magnanimity towards nominees?

I might just die laughing.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Bork was nominated, and then rejected. A rather acrimonious process, but simply put, Bork was a toxic nominee. Bad enough to simply be part of the Nixon administration, but having participated in the Saturday Night Massacre where he fired an independent prosecutor at the President's bidding. Of course, judicially he seemed unaware of the 9th and 10th amendments, or the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments. Or even Article I, section (4)i. Congress has always had the power to regulate elections, and the Constitution's failure to articulate something directly is not dispositive of its validity.

But it was Douglas H. Ginsburg who declined the nomination when his smoking of marijuana was revealed. A media frenzy over it, and one that didn't set well with Reagan's own drug policies.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[david_thornley]

Sure - except that what the Republicans have announced they are doing is not what the Democrats did. If the Republicans object to a specific Supreme Court nomination, that's fine. If they object to Supreme Court nominees in general, that isn't. Reagan had Bork rejected and Kennedy accepted.

The Republicans might also want to think about the possibility of a Democrat-controlled Senate with Bernie or Hillary making the nominations. Do they want to seriously consider an Obama nomination that they have some influence on or worry about that? Any change in the Federal government extent or balance of power should be considered in the light of politicians you really don't want holding the power, not just the people who currently would get the power.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

The other side needs to find a brain also. They are just as bad. All news seems to be single side and it is either far left or far right.
CNN, MSN, and so on are just as bad as FOX.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

The GOP has said they refuse to even confer or vet the nominee. It's just all blocking. It's one thing if the GOP doesn't like a particular nominee. That's just politics as usual. It is another thing to shut down the whole process because Scalia didn't die at the right time. Bunch of cry babies.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

Withdrawing a nomination is by the consent of the nominee. That has nothing to do with the Senate's obligation to do their job.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

For myself, I am ticked that the President didn't drop a recess appointment into the opening as soon as the justice was declared dead.

The President has time. Congress typically gets out during the summer. I would think it would just make the President look bad. He has to give Congress the chance first. If they continue to be obstinate, then it's on them. The President comes out on the moral high ground and gets what he wants.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

The Judiciary committee must first meet to discuss and approve any nominee. Then it goes to the whole Senate. Much of the work of the Senate is done this way. The Budget Committee first creates, reviews, and approves a budget before the whole Senate can vote on it, for example. Chairman Senator Grassley (R-IA) has already said they would not even consider a candidate.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Although McConnell seems to be succeeding at his goal of making Obama a two term president only.

Yes, I have this sneaking suspicion that on the day after the election McConnell will be crowing about how he finally succeeded in ousting Obama from office and thus the Republican strategy is starting to make some headway. Is it any wonder I hate politics?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when have the (R)'s abided by the constitution? After all, if you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to worry about. Now, in the name of the fucking Patriot Act, unlock your iPhone for me!!

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

What did Biden do again? There was no nominee in 1992. There was one in 1991 and 1993. So what did he do?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

Ok if you insist.. but what about the 6 nominations that were not withdrawn and never voted on?

Was I ambiguous in the 8 withdrawn nominations being separate from the no voting at all?

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

Maybe you were laughing so hard that not only did you miss the your instead of you're but you missed the entire point too.

Perhaps if you read it again. Maybe get your mom to help.

Re: Nomination Blocked!

[KGIII]

Excellent! And thank you! At any rate, one good reply deserves another. I'll see what I can do. No promises. I'll try to make it interesting, however.

As an aside; That, the AC above, is what ACs everywhere should strive to be. Err... Except when trolling, that's kind of mandatory.

Unfortunately, because of the moderation system, your post may well be ignored and missed. That's the negative of being an Anonymous Coward. For better worse, it is what it is and understandably so. A handy pseudonym and an account (you can even use a VPN) is something I'd recommend you consider. I, for one, welcome good, articulate, and thoughtful additions to the comments.

Err... I also don't mind being 'wrong' or having someone fill in things that I don't know. I actually sort of value it. It means I'm continuing to step out of my comfort zone and will (ideally) learn something new. I don't even recollect Ginsburg. The name's vaguely familiar but I'm thinking the name's attached to someone else in my recollection - the first name's different though I can't think of the other person's first name either.

I am not a historian nor do I do well at remembering names, dates, figures, trivia, or things like that. With enough repetition I can remember it. I can cram it into me and store it for a year or so - if I want to go through that process. I can retain it long enough to do well on a test but that fades quickly once I no longer need it. I'm not being humble or self-depreciating when I say that I'm not that smart. I'm really not.

If you looked at the numbers, you'd think I'm a genius and I'm not. I just test *really* well and my brain has a trick where it can hold things until no longer needed. Until something "clicks" there's a good chance that I'm relying on rote as opposed to comprehension. I also can follow directions and listen well. One might say that's intelligence in and of itself but I'm more inclined to think it's just my pragmatic (perhaps wise) approach to my brain's particular mechanisms.

So, thank you. I'm gonna forget that but I appreciate the correction/additional information.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[david_thornley]

Unfortunately, I've seen people on Facebook claiming that the death of a 79-year-old man not in good health in unsuspicious circumstances was probably murder. Facebook's usually looney, but this seems to be going above and beyond.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[slapout]

“There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nomineethat once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.” --Barack Obama, 2006

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

No but I only pointed that attempting to include irrelevant things into your argument that did not belong there. By the way, it was more than 6 so I would suggest you get the facts correct. Let's discuss those cases then:

• John J. Crittenden, 1829
• Roger B. Taney, 1835 (confirmed 1836)
• John M. Read, 1845
• Edward A. Bradford, 1852
• George E. Badger, 1853
• William C. Micou,1853
• Henry Stanbery, 1866 (nullified)
• George Henry Williams, 1873
• Thomas Stanley Matthews, 1881
• Homer Thornberry, 1968 (nullified)

Most of the cases happened before 1900. In some of them the Senate voted to postpone or delay. Then their session may have run out. The President should have then re-nominated the justice but did not choose to do so. In the case of Taney, he eventually became Chief Justice the next year.

So in this century only 1 justice has not been voted on by the Senate. Homer Thornberry's nomination was nullified because he was to replace Justice Fortas if Fortas moved onto become Chief Justice. When Fortas withdrew his nomination as Chief Justice and stayed as Associate Justice, there was no position. Johnson could have nominated Thornberry to Chief Justice but chose not to do so.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[fsckinhippies]

That says with the consent of the senate. Consent

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

Why should he care who he looks? He has no more elections to win and half the country already despises him. What does he really have to lose?

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Dcnjoe60]

Yes, it does, but it has been held that the senate must meet to either give or deny consent. Not holding the hearing is a violation of Article II as it has been interpreted. Of course, Obama simply needs to wait until the senate is in recess and he can make a temporary appointment. Then the senate must address the issue when they return.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

In the original "at least 6" was used. The latter use of 6 was in reference to the original so I'm not sure why you went there.

I do not discount withdrawn nominations because some of them could have been due to knowing they wouldn't receive a vote. Would you want to be remembered as someone so insignificant that the Senate would even vote you down or someone who decided not to take the position?

And thanks for the extra information. It has been a while and i was just quickly thumbing through some websites to bring the point up.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[voss]

The crittenden nomination was after the presidential election by a lame duck president. A better counter example would be Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, appointing a justice in April of 1888 an election year. Cleveland also appointed another justice in 1892 also an election year, in both cases congress was controlled by the Republicans and in both cases the nominee was confirmed in short order. Most of 6 failed nominations were in fact defeated not ignored. If a nominee is withdrawn it does not count. Eisenhower appointed william brennan as a recess appointment in 1956 in an election year and the justice was confirmed in the following year.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[UnknowingFool]

I do not discount withdrawn nominations because some of them could have been due to knowing they wouldn't receive a vote. Would you want to be remembered as someone so insignificant that the Senate would even vote you down or someone who decided not to take the position?

In some of the cases the candidate assumed they would not pass a confirmation vote, but they would receive a vote. The last to withdraw, Harriet Miers withdrew after members from both parties questioned her qualifications as unsuitable and wondered if the major reason she was nominated was that she was a close friend of George W. Bush. Even if her confirmation got out of a committee vote (which it did not look like it would), it looked as if she would not survive an at-large confirmation vote. So she withdrew.

The nominee before her, Douglas H. Ginsburg, withdrew after 7 days after it was revealed he used marijuana as a professor in the 1960s. This was after the previous Robert Bork underwent a contentious confirmation battle and lost. But in that case, my point would be the Senate would have voted. They would have voted no,but they would have voted. As for other nominees, each case has to look at independently but your point is not entirely correct.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[sumdumass]

No, those 6 had no votes whatsoever on their confirmation. Some actually had resolutions passed on not holding a vote.

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

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?

Recently, you are correct on the average time; however, the longest time was a lot longer than 10 months. I agree that the Senate should consider nominees, but the Democrats threatened to do the same to Bush near the end of his second term (although they ended up not following through on the threat, so kudos to them, I guess).

The vow ...

[Anonymous Coward]

To allow nothing Obama touches succeed will continue ... besides once Trump becomes president he was planning on using all those books to build a wall wasn't he?

Re:The vow ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought a book burning, and armbands for the muslims.

Mitch McConnell responds "HELL NO!"

[NotDrWho]

The next President should pick the Librarian!!!

Re:Mitch McConnell responds "HELL NO!"

[Anonymous Coward]

RACIST bullshit nomination. Of course Obama picks a person of African American descent. He sees ONLY race. Scum.

Also, you motherfucker asshole liar partisan fucking puke, your beloved Biden said Bush shouldnt nominate a justice in the same environment.

You fucking puke motherfucking flip flop asshole - you people who worship political parties are a fucking embarassment.

Motherfucker traitor and you are an lover of authoritarian police states.

Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election..."

DENY THAT , its on video, you fucking little prick traitor asshole.

-PUblius

Re:Mitch McConnell responds "HELL NO!"

[markdavis]

>"RACIST bullshit nomination. Of course Obama picks a person of African American descent. He sees ONLY race. Scum."

Of course your post is a troll (and already modded down), but I find it amusing that you would post such a thing. So if Bush appointed a European American, would that be seeing only race?

Hopefully he picked the best candidate for the job... someone who has the best experience and fit. If that happens to be someone black or a woman or both, that is perfectly fine. If she was picked BECAUSE she was black or a woman (or both), then that would be bad.

I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions without having done a lot of research... something I am sure most people commenting on Slashdot have not done.

Re:Mitch McConnell responds "HELL NO!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hopefully he picked the best candidate for the job"
nope.

Libraries are for LUDDITES.

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern app appers know that ONLY apps can app apps, so LUDDITE Obama should have nominated an App Apper of Appgress, NOT A LUDDITE LIBRARIAN!

Apps!

Here's to rubber-stamp DMCA exemptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Never did understand why exemptions needed to be renewed...

Re:Here's to rubber-stamp DMCA exemptions

[omnichad]

Here's to arguing for fair-use exemptions to the DMCA. Because if the LoC can't preserve our digital culture, it needs to go. And if I am legally allowed to be able to rip my DVDs again that would be a nice bonus.

Trump will BURN all the books!

[Anonymous Coward]

No more wasting tax payers dollars on books or education.

Re:Trump will BURN all the books!

[Anonymous Coward]

No more wasting tax payers dollars on books or education.

Yeah. Just today I read that Trump loves the poorly educated. Makes sense that this should be an essential step in his plan to make America great again.

Re:Trump will BURN all the books!

[Anonymous Coward]

In context he said,

"We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We’re the smartest people, we’re the most loyal people, and you know what I’m happy about? Because I’ve been saying it for a long time. 46% were the Hispanics—46%, number one with Hispanics. I’m really happy about that.
So I’m very proud of you, this is an amazing night. I love the country, I love the country. "

Re:Trump will BURN all the books!

[Darinbob]

Trump makes America grate again!

Re:Trump will BURN all the books!

[silentcoder]

Now you mention it, isn't it funny how those "we must make government smaller" republicans never seem to want touch libraries. It's not like any of their voters read... yet somehow libraries get a free pass while the programs that give hungry people food get gutted. It's an interesting observation since the only *other* things that get a free pass are military spending, oil subsidies, tax breaks for rich people, tax loopholes for big corporations and their own paychecks (they will never suggest balancing the budget by cutting their OWN salaries).

But everything else on that list, you can see clear self-interest. Not cutting those things means money back in their own pockets (even with military spending- contractors tend to be very loyal donors). I find it surprising that they haven't suggested gutting the LoC or the Smithsonian and such... where's the benefit for them there ? It can't even be that they just like to use them, they've never been inside either and neither has anybody who votes for them...

Yes, but does the new Librarian have good Psy?

[rsborg]

Clearly we should find out: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/...

Re:Yes, but does the new Librarian have good Psy?

[Darinbob]

Ook?

Wow... classy

[imidan]

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.

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.

Re:Wow... classy

[epine]

No matter what you thought of the guy, this is not a great time to say it.

What's the matter? Can't even work yourself up to rathering, much less something usefully concrete?

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Slownewsday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

Re:Wow... classy

[imidan]

I don't entirely understand the reference, not having read that particular book of Dennett's.

But I don't believe I'm trying to introduce some kind of false dichotomy, which as far as I can make out, is what you're talking about. I'm suggesting that the event of the appointment of a new Librarian of Congress is not a particularly good venue for denigrating the retired one. The old guy already stepped down, and the contextless sniping of the summary just seems spiteful. It's also completely without support, which makes it appear to be editorial.

We can certainly have a conversation about the failings of Billington. But "stuffy" "old" and "out of touch" have more flavor of ad hominem than of criticisms of his job performance.

Re:Wow... classy

[Anonymous Coward]

So when is a good time, when everybody has forgotten him?

Oook?

[wonkey_monkey]

Oook? Ook.

Re:Oook?

[Cyberpunk Reality]

'Move pointer left?'

Re:Oook?

[wonkey_monkey]

++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.

Tangentially-related open access item

[Krishnoid]

With NSF's public access policy in place, PubMed provides open-access to a lot of journal papers in a variety of formats, including EPUB.

I've found the PubMed site itself to be one of the best-laid-out reference web sites I've used, period -- its links to external journals, full and partial papers in various formats, and ability to bookmark items of interest, are all very functional and easy to access.

Re:Tangentially-related open access item

[fiannaFailMan]

Bit of 90s styling though.

Re:Tangentially-related open access item

[KGIII]

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Are you suggesting like buttons, a PM system, and the opportunity to share it on other sites, perhaps? 'Cause I kinda like it like it is and it's kind of imperative that it is as it's likely to allow access with the fewest resources including physical capacity.

Given its location, it's almost certainly likely to "work" (for some semblance of the word) for blind people, for example. I'm sure if it didn't, someone would be yelling about it and rightfully so, I guess. Do they have resources enough to run multiple sites?

IOW, I'm kind of partial to it. I've seen what happens when sites do a layout change and altered features. It seldom goes well... This is even more true when there's a dedicated group of users who are entitled (without connotations assigned, legitimately entitled) to the content. If they change that, someone's work cycle is going to change. If we change that, someone's scripts are gonna change. Someone's internal security settings, across thousands of computers, is probably gonna have to change to allow some dumb-asses remotely hosted nodejs or some other damned library, or fonts, or metrics, or dynamic content, or share buttons, etc...

Someone's gonna be REALLY pissed if you do that. They are gonna yell at you. They are going to send you hate mail. They are going to blog about it, Twitter it, Facebook it, and share it with everyone that will listen - even if you get it *right.* I can assure you, you will not do it right. I've *seen* this. If you don't believe me, consider what happens for something like pushing code to the Linux kernel that breaks userspace. That's a tiny fraction of what you can expect.

Hmm... You wouldn't work in UX/UI, would you? 'Cause, seriously... Dude... They get PISSED. Hell, I got there once a month (at most) and I'm gonna be mildly annoyed. It has to work with *every* browser out there 'cause one of 'em is using LYNX. Hell, one of them's probably still using GOPHER. Every failure is gonna need to be a graceful failure and retain all current usage functions in a clear and easy manner that is not much different and able to accept all sorts of inputs and display formats. Gone are the days of, "This page is optimized for Internet Explorer 6!"

In fact, now that I think about it, they kind of have to go for a pretty low standard. It's kind of the lowest common denominator type of thing. There are people accessing this on remote data links, with satellite phones, and in the middle of a jungle with specialty low-energy compute gear. It has to work for them. The standards and protocols it uses are decades old and have stood the test of time. You're REALLY gonna piss people off if you break ANY of that. Any of it...

Nope... Not enough money in the world to make me touch that project. I'm thinking it's good that it is from the 1990s. That's fine - don't touch it. That's a move that says, "Career Ending." That's really gonna limit your future employment opportunities if it goes wrong - and it *will.* Hell, look at the rage when Google changes their font. Imagine that with much greater intensity and actual repercussions. Nope, not enough money in the world.

Do you work for Mozilla?

About that stuffy old academic

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2015/15-174.html
https://www.loc.gov/about/about-the-librarian/previous-librarians-of-congress/james-h-billington/

Billington doubled the size of the Library’s traditional analog collections while simultaneously creating a massive new digital Library of Congress providing official legislative information, primary documents of American history, international cultural treasures and a host of web-based innovations such as electronic copyright registration, mobile access to reading materials for the blind and physically handicapped and modernized cataloging standards for libraries nationwide.

He established the National Book Festival, the John W. Kluge Center and its Nobel-level John W. Kluge Prize for Achievement in the Study of Humanity, the world’s largest and most state-of-the-art audio-visual conservation center, the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song and other programs to "get the champagne out of the bottle" for the American public.

Billington also raised half a billion dollars in private support to supplement Congressional appropriations during a period of exponential growth, and despite a 30 percent reduction in personnel.

The second link has even more about that "stuffy old academic". It really does a disservice to him and to Slashdot for yaelk to base the story on Dr. Carla Hayden's nomination on some noname jackass's blog. My hopes that Slashdot was going to improve its article selection with the new ownership is fast fading.

Re:About that stuffy old academic

[KGIII]

I'm not sure that I agree with your disbelief in the future of this site. I've noticed a trend towards improvement and I know things take time. It's imperative to consider the amount of time that goes into editing a story (such as it is) and acceptance of the story. At the moment, there's a lot for them to do and to learn - I do not expect to see immediate changes but trends that show improvement over time. I'm seeing this. I see a lot of Slashdot, actually. I'm pretty bored and I pop in and out throughout the day. Every day.

That said, I'm posting this so that others see your post. It's a valid post and I disagree with your observation but not your intent. It's important that your post is so low in the thread - few people read this far down and read at 0. I don't moderate and already commented so I can not vote. I will, hopefully, get your comment a little more notice. I won't quote it, I didn't say it. If you're reading at >= 1 then expand and read the above, the links appear valid.

yuo Fail IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, Linux 4obb7. It was all

Re:Nomination Blocked! A GAY NIGGER is PRESIDENT

[Anonymous Coward]

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it.

You can watch GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE on Youtube.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
Gary Niger gary_niger@gnaa.us GNAA Corporate Headquarters 143 Rolloffle Avenue Tarzana, California 91356
Enid Al-Punjabi enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us GNAA World Headquarters No.33 Kyutei Bld. 2F, Shinjuku 2-11-7, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan ????????2??11-6
Copyright (c) 2003-2015 Gay Nigger Association of America

Ich Bindawalross (London) - GNAA (NYSE: GNAA) President Nigger released a statement today regarding the immediate Internet rele

Re:Nomination Blocked! A GAY NIGGER is PRESIDENT

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, what's the TLDR?

stuffy old academic?

[slashdime]

"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."

What the fucking fuck. I read this sentence and my bullshit detector went so that I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and read for myself. Please learn to read and form your opinion instead of trusting this asshat submitter.

I read over his entire career and I can't really find much disagreeable with this guy.
During his tenure at the Library of Congress, Billington championed no-fee electronic services,[12] beginning with:

American Memory in 1990, which became The National Digital Library in 1994, providing free access online to digitized American history and culture resources with curatorial explanations for K-12 education

THOMAS.gov website in 1994 to provide free public access to U.S. federal legislative information with ongoing updates; and CONGRESS.gov website to provide a state-of-the-art framework for both Congress and the public in 2012

Educational portal for K-12 teachers and students in 1996, and subsequently new prizes and programs for advancing literacy in 2013

Online social media presence for the Library beginning in 2007, which expanded to include blogs, Flickr, establishment of Flickr Commons, Facebook, iTunesU, Pinterest, RSS, Twitter, YouTube and other new media channels. Twitter donated its digital archive to the Library of Congress in 2010; its vice president of engineering, Greg Pass noted, "I am very grateful that Dr. Billington and the Library recognize the value of this information."

"eCo" online copyright registration, status-checking, processing, and electronic file upload systems in 2008

The World Digital Library in 2009, in association with UNESCO and 181 partners in 81 countries, to make oline copies of professionally curated primary materials of the world's varied cultures free available in multiple languages.

Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2010, a new cataloguing standard for the digital age implements in 2013

BIBFRAME in 2011, a data model for bibliographic description to provide a foundation for those depending on bibliographic data shared by the Library with partners on the web and in the broader networked world

National Jukebox in 2011 to provide streaming free online access to more than 10,000 out-of-print music and spoken word recordings.

BARD in 2013, digital talking books mobile app for Braille and Audio Reading Downloads in partnership with the Library's National Library Service for the blind and physically handicapped, that enables free downloads of audio and Braille books to mobile devices via the Apple App Store.

Re:stuffy old academic?

[slashdime]

To add to this already long list:

Some of the most important freedoms we have come from this guy as well due to the loopholes he introduced into the DMCA:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/b...

Seriously, what a fucking disgrace this summary is.

Re:stuffy old academic?

[KGIII]

I hate to say it but I have to. This reeks of intentional hit piece. He was appointed by Reagan. Draw your own conclusions. They may not be connected events. They might be. I'm a wee bit stoned so I'm not gonna offer much of an opinion. However, it's the first thing I checked when I clicked your Wikipedia article. I skimmed the rest of it. Yeah, they might be connected.

We play politics like a team sport. Cheating is to be expected. Hell, they've even got rules to cover cheating at some level. They're more like role-playing rules than they are laws but they're rules. We expect people to cheat, they do. Why expect anything different when we play politics like it's a team sport?

Re:stuffy old academic?

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

Not to mention how it quickly jumped to defend this new nominee by playing the "racism card."

Welcome to the new LoC head librarian

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to welcome her. Also, I'm really happy with the new NSF and PubMed public access policies. It'll be really nice for people to have non-paywalled access to indexed (hopefully, with good search too) papers. This is probably one of the best things about government, when there are massive open-access public information stores.

Units

[bugs2squash]

This is government over-reach gone mad, There's no need for a "secretary of the length of a football field" or a knight guardian of "areas the size of Belgium" or a minister for the "mass of an SUV".

Where does it end ? Justice presiding over Wiffles ?

So a double win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'm either way on gender and race (if you like that she is a woman and African American, then fine, good for you), my real joy would come from (1) adjustment (read overhaul, complete restructuring, massive change) to the copyright office, and (2) adoption of Open/Free technologies/licensing can only be a good thing. The proprietary / locked down world we have inherited is as draconian as Vladimir Putin, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and any of the worlds 'baddies' as you can imagine. Walt Disney was a control freak, and his descendants backstopped the Sonny Bono Act (aka DMCA) which was a massive clusterfuck. Bill Clinton signed it. I normally like Bill, but I can't ever forgive this. Obama wants to throw *everyone* under the same bus with the TPP. It must be killed, the DMCA repealed.

Terry Pratchett

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to make a joke about bananas and "ook ook" but given she's black you just know someone's going to take it out of context.....

She's black - what a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually there will be no white people in positions of power - aren't we lucky. That'll show us! Wretched white people, building successful, safe civilisations (at least, before the Jews took them over and then managed to convince us all to start killing our white brothers and sisters in other countries (World War One and World War Two) and the Jews' enemies in the Middle East.

Are you sick of this yet? Good luck living as a white minority in a third world country.

Re:She's black - what a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone (read as "white trash redneck") yammering about "no white people in positions of power" or "Jews taking over" or "our white brothers and sisters" should not be anywhere near any position of power. Even being elected to the position of dog catcher would probably send them on a power trip. Just sayin'.

What a massively biased article

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

It immediately goes on the offensive against the previous librarian for no reason whatsoever, then quickly jumps on the defensive to preemptively dismiss any criticism as thoughtless racism.

If race isn't a factor, then why did i immediately predict that it would be a black person as soon as I saw the article headline?

What?

[tom229]

I'm confused why this is a good thing. I would personally side with the old guy. Some new age hipster coming in and ocr'ing all books and handing them over to Amazon is not "progress". It's indebting yourself. Email is also anything but secure, and was never meant to be. It's proliferation without real sender security layers existing on top of it are still a problem today. Believe it or not, fax is actually still more secure. That's why most government offices still don't email anything of significance.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why most government offices still don't email anything of significance.

Check your facts. I work for the government (DoD) and we almost exclusively use email. Hell, you can even email documents classified SECRET, provided you use SIPRNET. I only use the fax machine a couple of times a year, at most.

This really should be left up to the next elected

[Anonymous Coward]

think "Selected" President, not elected.