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!

[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!

[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!

[fiannaFailMan]

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

Re:Nomination Blocked!

[blindseer]

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

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!

[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!

[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!

[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]

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!

[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!

[Darinbob]

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

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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.

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?

Oook?

[wonkey_monkey]

Oook? Ook.

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

[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?

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.

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.