Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

President Obama Nominates New Librarian of Congress Who Supports Open Access (teleread.com)

Posted by yaelk on from the will-the-gop-let-this-through dept.

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.

15 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Nomination Blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Nomination Blocked! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By stuffing you mean filling in a position open due to unexpected death? How dare Scalia die this year!! Also by stuffing you mean following the Constitution? I also believe that the people already had a say in the matter when they elected Obama to be President.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re: Nomination Blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Nomination Blocked! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Nomination Blocked! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..

      They aren't blocking anything. They are stating their opinion which they have ever right todo.

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

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:Nomination Blocked! by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    6. Re:Nomination Blocked! by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re: Nomination Blocked! by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Nomination Blocked! by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      It's one thing to openly question and discuss the candidate, then reject through a vote. It's bullshit to simply say don't bother because we think it should wait until the next president.

      If this was November, I would agree with them. It is February. I believe that the average time to nominate and vote on a potential Supreme Court Justice is around 2 months, a vacant seat has never lasted more than 4 months. And the Republicans want to do nothing for 10 months?

      Fuck them. I hope Obama nominates a moderate Republican (if any still exist) or a conservative Democrat (I know a few) just to make them look even more stupid.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    9. Re:Nomination Blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!

    10. Re:Nomination Blocked! by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And most of these same people were whining eight years ago that it was unfair when the Democrats pulled this same crap with circuit court nominees. The Democrats caved, and George W. Bush put four circuit court justices on the bench between April and July of his last year.

      The Democrats were wrong to try this eight years ago, and the Republicans were right to call it unfair. But that makes the Republican leadership a bunch of hypocritical opportunists for turning right around eight years later and acting like spoiled children.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Nomination Blocked! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    12. Re:Nomination Blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. Oook? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oook? Ook.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  3. Tangentially-related open access item by Krishnoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.