Centerfield

Mathew,

While I agree that Mr. Gonzales should have been confirmed, the president has a constitutional right to nominate his Cabinet, not to appoint it. The Constitution does not restrict the Senate in its scope of inquiry into the propriety of a presidential nominee for any office.

What we saw with the Gonzales and Rice nominations was the process working as it should: Democrats, who disagree with the nominee, debating the issues in committee and on the floor, voting against the nomination, and losing where the national political will fails to turn to their arguments.

Some, who have read my arguments here in my posts in December, will accuse me of hypocrisy for defending the filibuster as applied to judicial nominees. I distinguish my position on executive department nominees from judicial department nominees thus: a judge or Justice serves during good behavior, and an executive appointee serves (in most cases) at the pleasure of the president. The difficulty in removing a judge or Justice should impose a higher threshold of political acquiescence to his appointment.

Mathew,

While I agree that Mr. Gonzales should have been confirmed, the president has a constitutional right to nominate his Cabinet, not to appoint it. The Constitution does not restrict the Senate in its scope of inquiry into the propriety of a presidential nominee for any office.

What we saw with the Gonzales and Rice nominations was the process working as it should: Democrats, who disagree with the nominee, debating the issues in committee and on the floor, voting against the nomination, and losing where the national political will fails to turn to their arguments.

Some, who have read my arguments here in my posts in December, will accuse me of hypocrisy for defending the filibuster as applied to judicial nominees. I distinguish my position on executive department nominees from judicial department nominees thus: a judge or Justice serves during good behavior, and an executive appointee serves (in most cases) at the pleasure of the president. The difficulty in removing a judge or Justice should impose a higher threshold of political acquiescence to his appointment.

Yes, technically you are right, the President has a right to nominate and not to appoint, and the Senate has a right to approve. IMO the precedent set by that section of the Constitution is that the Senate approves the President's nominees unless something in that person's past unqualifies them for the job. For instance, had Kerik not resigned I would have been writing about why the Seanate should vote that nomination down. The use of a nominee's personal opinion on the issues has only been used on rare occasions, usually when one party is trying to make a statement. The Democrats did so last time with Norton and Ashcroft, and the Republicans did so when they knocked down a Clinton nomination for Surgeon General who had performed abortions. I agree with Senator Russ Feingold when he said about Ashcroft that the spirit of the law is the President gets who he wants. To me that makes sense and is traditionally the case... Why would we elect President's if they did not get to put the people in the cabinet they wanted?

I fully agree with you about the filibuster and it's legal purpose... I thought Frist's actions where wrong, and I say so here. A Senator pretty much has a right to filibuster anything, and there is a good reason for it.

Oh and Jaded,

For the record, I have no problem with them asking questions about Gonzalez until their heart is content. My issue is the final vote. With Rice IMO, after the questioning, what the Democrats where doing was debating a foregone conclusion and wasting time for political purposes. I do not see that to be the case here. It is clear that the debate is a contentious one, therefore, it should be longer.

I haven't followed this closely enough to know one way or the other, but it's unclear to me whether Gonzalez provided clear answers to the questions regarding torture during the confirmation hearings. On the one hand, the media reports suggested he came out against torture. But the editorial in last Wednesday's Washington Post says he gave a different perspective in his written answers to the committee's questions.

What were his answers? And what is our government's policy regarding torture? Or, more specifically, the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" reference in their legal opinions?

Hm. I'm not sure how I posted that comment twice. Apologies.

"It is improper for the Senate to vote down a nominee because they disagree with that person's viewpoint on certain issues. The President has a Constitutional right to appoint people to his cabinet who agree with him, or not. He did, after all, win an election."

So this means that the role of the Senate to "advise and consent" to cabinet nominees in the Constitution has no real meaning?

Why was it written in, then?

Is the entire Constitution "optional" if it doesn't meet the ideological desires of the moment?

Regardless of what you say about "the choice is between torture or my family, I say use torture" the correct and moral choice is NEVER torture. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Your family? Your dog is part of your family...

Your neighbors?

Your neighbors' friends?

Your cat?

Where?

Torture is all too easy to justify, as is the abuse and murder of those who are of the "wrong" beliefs, the "wrong" religion, the "wrong" skin color...

We've seen already where that leads. I would have liked to have thought that the 60th anniversary of the capture of Auschwitz would have reminded us.

Apparently not.

The Nazis were very effective at spreading the belief that people of a certain religion were a "moral and mortal danger" to the state and the people.

Hmmmm...

Does that sound like some certain statements I've heard from people who are taken seriously in the US?

So much for "Never forget."

Do you really want to take the first steps down that path? I do not.

First, I agree with Jack to the extent that, if the Senate believes that Gonzalez's or Rice's opinions or actions in a previous position raise signficant questions about their qualifications, it has every right to vote that nomination down. Certainly, the president's nominees should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I think there were serious and substantial questions about Gonzales' fitness to be Attorney General. After all, a cabinet position is more than just being able to read a case. There is a judgment component and a moral component; the fact that the president may want a particular person doesn't mean that the Senate should overlook serious judgmental or moral failings. And I think his equivocation on the torture issue is a significant problem.

With respect to the general issue of torture, however, I think I disagree with Jack to the extent that he may think that torture should never be even considered under any circumstances. I'm not willing to go that far, although there is really only one scenario that makes sense and that is the obvious imminent threat of a major attack. I think such a scenario (in other words that you would need to torture someone to stop an attack) is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, to say that torture could never be used under any circumstance seems to me to be both naive (clearly, it's going to happen) and obtuse.

I don't know what Jack means by his statement "The Nazis were very effective at spreading the belief that people of a certain religion were a "moral and mortal danger" to the state and the people.

Hmmmm...

Does that sound like some certain statements I've heard from people who are taken seriously in the US?"

If you are trying to equate Islamic terrorist groups, some of whose members are American citizens, with the Jews in Germany, I can't go with you there. (I am not saying, of course, that Muslim citizens should be singled out for persecution or anything like that.) I worry about the slippery slope too, but comparing the Patriot Act, for example, to Auschwitz is, I think, a little much.

FYI -- Here's a link to the written responses Gonzalez gave to the committee. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.)

It's complicated stuff, and a good bit of it is "I'm not going to answer that because it's privileged".