President Bush’s Vetoes More Politics than Principle

In 2007 President Bush has threatened slightly more than twice the number of vetoes he did in 2003, according to USA Today. This marker is important because in 2003 there was a Republican led House Senate that was drawing threats for similarly spending above what the president requests or attaching disagreeable legislative provisions. The Democrats took over in January 2007 and continue this practice of spending over the president’s request. Those who argue that well the Democrats spend further over than the Republicans are missing the point. When your principle is capping spending on a program to control it shouldn’t matter who spends how much more than the president’s request. The principle dictates that you veto bills no matter who they come from when the break your cap or contain provisions unacceptable to you.

When Republicans controlled both the House and Senate the President threatened a veto on bills above his cap or with disagreeable provisions attached but than signed them anyway. One example is the transportation bill in 2004 on which the Heritage Foundation supported a veto because of wasteful spending included in the bill. The President even called the Senate version of the bill excessive for exceeding his cap. After declaring the bill excessive he signed the House version, which was no less excessive. The second example is the Defense Authorization Act of 2005, which included the Detainee Treatment Act, also received a veto threat. However, President Bush signed the bill and attached a signing statement with respect to the detainee language.

Now with the Democrats in control he threatens to veto any legislation that includes an Iraq time line or restrictions on operations in Iraq. This threat produced a bill that did not include the offensive language in any form. The President is also threatening vetoes on any spending legislation that breaks his caps.

The only veto during the Republican controlled legislature was the HR 800 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This veto was specifically for social/cultural conservatives and there was nothing in it that would give fiscal conservatives any hope. Now he is vetoing spending legislation and the fiscal conservatives are supposed to be happy. However, these vetoes are more about politics than principle. It makes good politics to veto Democrat legislation and apparently OK to strong arm your own party with signing statements when the send you something that you do not like.This is politics and an exertion of raw executive power. The reason President Bush may not use signing statements on Democrat legislation is because the GOP wouldn’t stand up to him for doing or support Sen. Warner, McCain, and Graham when they criticized the President in the Boston Globe about the signing statement attached to the Detainee Treatment Act. No one on either side stood with them even though the act passed overwhelmingly.

We need to examine the issues of principle over politics when looking at the actions of our elected officials. It is a noble goal to want to cut wasteful spending or understandable to wish to control the conduct of a war. However, weather the House and Senate in the control of your party or the opposing party you should use the same veto power to control both.

Federal Judge Voids PA immigration law

A federal judge has ruled that a Pennsylvania city’s laws to discourage illegal immigration are unconstitutional. The suit, filed by the ACLU, held that the penalties Hazelton imposed on those who housed or employed illegal immigrants violated the Constitution and federal law,

Non-Executive Privelege

Vice President Richard B. Cheney once claimed that he was covered by executive privilege and therefore he shouldn’t have to release the documents relating to the energy task force that he initiated. This 2004 argument was only partially upheld by the Supreme Court. It was upheld in the sense that the courts are not the correct place to decide secrecy issues.

However, now Mr. Cheney is claiming that he is not a part of the executive branch. This extraordinary claim is coming during a dispute with the National Archives and Records Administration44 U.S.C. § 2207 which covers Vice Presidential records. Executive Order 13233 Sec. 11 also speaks to this topic.

One Issue Focus May Shut Senate Down

Judges are important in the administration of justice. Judicial nominees deserve votes in committee and on the floor. Senators have a responsibility to hold up a nomination when they have a cause to desire closer scrutiny. However, none of this should shut down the entire business of the United States Senate.

The Democrats attempted this procedural maneuver by which you present a motion to limit committees to only work for two hours. This basically prevents any business from getting done because everything in the Senate goes through the committee process, unless the leadership agrees that it will proceed directly to the floor. This creates a danger with troops in the field because it will stop the authorization and appropriations process from moving forward.

The Republican leadership is now threatening to use this procedure to bring attention to the judicial nomination of Leslie Southwick, which is held up in the Judiciary Committee by Sen. Patrick Leahy. He wants to scrutinize her record more closely. That is ok and his responsibility. However, while the maneuver will bring attention to the nomination it will not get a vote any more quickly because if you restrict the work of the committee they will take longer to conduct another hearing as may be necessary or a meeting for discussion of the nomination.

A shutdown of the Senate to bring attention to the nomination also stops the Senate from working on other issues, such as immigration reform and the budget. If the committees are slowed, completely stopped, or the Senate is completely shut down over the nomination nothing can be completed.

The Republican leadership may do this because they know it will unite the Senators and the base in attacking the Democrats over not letting votes occur. However, we are discussing one nomination and not the majority. There have been a number of nominations voted on because they are being debated and approved.

It seems that we are discussing either one or a small handful of nominations that are controversial for one reason or another. These appointments should have intense but fair scrutiny because they are lifetime appointments. Shutting down the Senate is not the way to achieve this goal because it contributes to the problem of politicizing the nominations and also demeans the Senate as an institution.

Requesting Legislation…From the Bench

How many times did we hear Mr. Bush say in speeches or press statements that he did not want judges legislating from the bench? This question applies to all situations including campaigns and nomination battles. Now he appears to be asking for legislation from the bench in direct contravention to prior statements about how judges should conduct their judicial duties.

The Military Commissions Act, for all its flaws, granted detainees the right to a civilian council with no restriction. Mr. Bush agreed to this when he signed the law without a signing statement. Defense directives also outline how the provisions of the law are to be carried out. Now, Mr. Gonzales is submitting a brief to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing to restrict access to civilian attorneys in spite of the law.

The court can accept the case. However, if they found in Mr. Bush’s favor would they not be legislating from the bench?

US “Patriot Act” Attorneys

The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act was signed in to law and became Pub. L. 109-177 on March 9, 2006 with §502 which grants the power to appoint “permanent” interim US Attorneys.

The provision amends 28 U.S.C.  §546 and states the following:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under §541 of this title.

There is no time limit within which the President must  submit the nomination to the Senate for the “advice and consent” required by the Constitution and § 541 for a permanent appointment. The repealed language of §546 set the time limit for an interim appointment at 120 days so there would not be a US Attorney that went without confirmation by the Senate. The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act was signed in to law and became Pub. L. 109-177 on March 9, 2006 with §502 which grants the power to appoint “permanent” interim US Attorneys.

The provision amends 28 U.S.C.  §546 and states the following:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under §541 of this title.

There is no time limit within which the President must  submit the nomination to the Senate for the “advice and consent” required by the Constitution and § 541 for a permanent appointment. The repealed language of §546 set the time limit for an interim appointment at 120 days so there would not be a US Attorney that went without confirmation by the Senate.

This fuels the current controversy surrounding the resignation of 7 former U.S. Attorney’s four who appeared before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday to testify about their cases. This was the second in a series of hearings looking into the employment practices of the Administration.

Official Photo of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias
Source: Timeless Images PhotographyThe most obvious of the cases is that of David Iglesias who received phone calls from lawmakers about a public corruption case involving Democrats shortly before the election last November. Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson both admitted making the calls but denied applying pressure to Mr. Iglesias, who claims that Mr. Domenici asked specifically about timetables and speeding up indictments. This behavior is in violation of the ethics rules of the Senate and House as well as possibly the U.S. Code.
 
However, Mr. Graham explained while Mr.. Sessions defended the Administration’s actions. Mr. Sessions was more probing in his questions and comments. Mr. Graham simply made some comments about how long their stints were, that they served at the pleasure of the President (to which they all agreed) and did not agree with “besmearching their records.” At the end he claimed that their files were out of order with the Department of Justice. He also told us that he believed in cycling as many people through the experience of being a US Attorney as possible.
 
  This led to the introduction of S. 214 Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 which would repeal §502 of Pub. L. 109-177 and reinstate the old rules. The bill passed out of committee and was placed on the Senate calendar on 12 February. Its movement has been impeded by Mr. Kyl who is requesting that amendments be allowed.

  Mr. Kyl fears the subsection removed by the Patriot Act because he believes that it violates the separation of powers by allowing the court to “appoint” someone to fill the vacancy permanently. United States v. Santana, 83 F.Supp. 2d 224 (1999 DC Puerto Rico) holds that as long as the President retains the right to replace the judicially selected interim with a nominee of his choosing that 28 U.S.C.  §546(d) does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The President always retains the authority to nominate someone under §541 to fill the vacancy because this section gives him the power to remove any U.S. Attorney.
 
  The issue with taking the provision out is that either the interim appointment becomes “permanent” or the vacancy may not be filled and create backlogs for the court and unconscionable delays in the administration of justice.

No Nomination Games Being Played

I agree that something needs to be done about the obstruction of judicial nominees, but what can be done so that we do not change to operation of the Senate? The “nuclear option” is no option at all because it will destroy the Senate.

Sen. Graham is blocking Mr. Haynes on principle because of his role in the torture scandal. No game here. Mr. Haynes wrote and endorsed the memos.

You bet that there would be cries of foul play if his election were moved up to tomorrow because it is not supposed to be until 2008. He is not supportive of nominees cooling their heels for years, but the one in question is problematic and there was some given up by the compromise.

The abuses have existed for a long time, but that does not mean we need a radical solution that makes irreversible changes.

I support the reforms because it would give all nominees of all presidents a fair vote, however, the Senators should have a right to block if there are substantial concerns, such as there are with Mr. Haynes.

I do not have a problem with knowing who is doing the blocking, however, a rules change should be done without the “nuclear option” and the Specter approach is a good start.

Response to “Lord on Judicial Nominations” on ConfirmThem.

Glad to be Sen. Graham’s Friend

Paul at PowerLine is as disappointed in Sen. Graham’s lack of a response to the issue of weather he is blocking the Haynes nomination as he is in the senator’s recent letter to conservative groups. The partisanship of the retired military officer does not matter as long as his concerns are valid. I am sure that Paul would be siging a different turn if this military officer were a partisan Republican. The other man mentioned, Mr. Guter is not incoherent just becasue he disagrees with a policy. If Mr. Haynes could not break from his ’superiors’ as General Counsel of DoD than it is right to question his indepedence as a judge when dealing with the cases that are sure to come before the court in the interceeding years.

Sen. Graham is relying on the testimony of former officers that either worked with Haynes or in the environment that Haynes created when he sold out his DoD position to go along with the Jusitce Department position. It is unfair to say that Sen. Graham is ignoring pro-Haynes viewpoints of the officer cited. If Maj. Gen. Michael Marchand would go in and talk to him or write a letter to him than He would consider his viewpoint as well.

He is talking about the JAG memos, which took him a year and one-half to get and they were classified for some unknown reason. He refers to these memos because they represented DoD policy and the concerns about the effect on the service men and women were valid. If the advice was followed than why couldn’t the Senator have them sooner? If they weren’t doing aything wrong why classify the opinion of the JAGs when the memos between Bybee, Haynes, Gonzales, and the other civilian lawyers were made public? Why did Secretary Rumsfeld later have to decertify some of the methods and why are we still dealing with this if he listened to their advice and the document addressed their concerns?

The argument that Sen. Graham did not consider the views of Maj. Gen. Roning or supoprters of Haynes is wrong because just the fact that he called someone that poisitively assessed Haynes is telling about his willingness to consider views contrary to his own and the critics.

The letter does not directly address the issue of his role in stopping the Haynes nomination, but conservatives have drawn the conclusion from the wording that he is the impediment. This is no surprise to me because he has said that there was one nominee that he would vote against and I think Haynes is that nominee. If the Haynes nomination goes through committee and to the floor there will be a filibuster and I would rather see Sen. Graham do everything in his power to preserve the civility and working order of the Senate.

No Haynes and No Flag Amendment

According to ConfirmThem via the American Spectator Blog the conservative groups are demanding a vote on the Judges, particularly Haynes rather than consideration of a flag amendment. I believe that they only care about Jim Haynes because it appears that a Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is holding him up and they think he should get a vote.

I don’t think that any senator thinks these issues are the equivalent of “boob bait and switch.” They all know the importance of the court and wish to confirm fit and qualified judges. This is their duty.

I am not sure what Mr. Keene complains of we have confirmed 7 of the original 11 stalled nominees, as well as a Chief Justice and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This seems like most of what they wanted. One nominee withdrew and another faces ethics questions. Mr. Haynes is stalled because of his role in the torture memos. The most likely to have the stall lifted is William Myers because his questions are ones of ideology rather than ethics or job performance.

Jan LaRue is correct that it is the Senate’s duty to advise and consent, however, that does not mean to just approve every nominee that comes from the White House. It is part of that duty to thoroughly examine a nominee for any problems that they may pose. There is other pressing business beside the judges. Mr. Haynes is being blocked because of his role while DoD General Counsel in the torture scandal.

William Greene is incorrect because the duty is for the Judiciary Committee to first thoroughly examine the nominee and take care of any objections, when possible, before the nominee is voted out to the floor. Once on the floor they are supposed to get an up or down vote. Sure Sen. Graham will answer to his constituents, but he is doing the right thing by blocking Mr. Haynes.

The issue with Judge Boyle’s rate of cases overturned may not be as much the number or percentage as what issues and questions he has been overturned on by the higher courts.

I agree that reforms need to be passed regarding timetable for consideration of nominees, however, we also need to allow Senators to use their prerogative to block unacceptable nominees, even if they must tell us they are doing it.

I agree with all the sentiments expressed about judges being confirmed in a timely manner being the faithful dispatch of the Constitution, but this must also apply when a Democrat president sends nominees to the Senate.

No Enemies of Jim Haynes, Just people Asking Pertinent questions

As Paul at PowerLineBlog points out Jim Haynes has his defenders who are also people who worked with him. If there is nothing wrong with him being a plaintiff against Secretary Rumsfeld in a case over abuses with the ACLU and being on the National Veterans for Kerry steering committee, than why mention because it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the President in an election and was willing to work with the ACLU as a way to tarnish his argument and call it incoherent. He may say there is nothing wrong with his but it is enough to plant doubt in the minds of people who might have been willing to support the argument before that Haynes was unfit. This casts a political question that does not belong. I do not believe that this stuff would have even been mentioned if he had worked with say the ACLJ on a case or the Bush Veterans Committee.

Paul has also spoken with a former co-worker that says good things about Mr. Haynes. However, this alone does not take away the serious and important questions being raised by the retired officers, Sen. Graham, and Sen. McCain about his role in the torture scandal.

Why is it not a good enough reason for him to have been instrumental in writing and approving memos that may have contributed to the environment of the Abu Ghraib situation? To me and others this is enough. He may be a dedicated civil servant with the ability to serve on the court, however, the nomination is derailed not for political reasons, but for reasons of principle. We don;t torture and we should not condone or support it either. The Haynes nomination is a chance forn us to make a conclusive statement about torture and the memos. It is no more disgusting that the nomination is held up than if it were a nominee you did not like who had the same background.

Sen. Graham may have been blocking Haynes’ nomination, but he is doing for a reason or principle, not because of politics. The Judiciary Committee is the place to stop an undesirable nominee. If you want him out of Committee so bad and believe he is being blocked get a majority of senators to sign discharge papers and move him out of committee without a vote. Lindsey is doing the honorable thing standing up for who the American people are and that we do not stand for torture even of terror suspects. He is not carrying water for John McCain, but standing on his own two feet. This is a risk for their political careers, but I contend that it is one worth taking. I do not live in South Carolina, but I write letters supporting the block because I feel it is the way that we best serve the country and keep the court room a quiet place where everyone can feel that they will receive justice. The block is the honorable course. I think that the good people of South Carolina should lend moral support in his block of the Haynes nomination because of the torture issue. Sen. Graham is a fine public servant, but he does not support torture. This is his way of telling us the the president is not going to be allowed to endorse interrogation techniques that are questionable at best and at worst break the law and violate our values.