-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Here is the second piece I promised (in an earlier post) about the battle against Chuck Hagel.
It’s a 1,000 word piece with several moving parts, but here’s the nut of the thesis:
[Senators] should consider a filibuster in its historical context, which originally was, honestly, to extend debate in order to have more time to persuade the public and other senators of one’s case. In extreme circumstances, of course, the ceaseless delay became, in effect, an outright blockage of legislation or nominees – but the legislative death-by-filibuster approach, rather than the “serve the cause of honest debate” approach, was rare enough that its use signaled a matter of particularly high importance, rather than a run-of-the-mill issue or action.
It would thus be more appropriate, not less, to use death-by-filibuster on the nomination of a Defense Secretary than on the nomination of, say, a U.S. Attorney. And it certainly would be appropriate to put a series of delays on such a nomination if it were reasonably thought that more relevant information was or should be forthcoming, or if it were reasonably thought that public opinion could be significantly altered – and especially if a sincere attempt were made in the meantime, via public debate on the Senate floor, to change fellow senators’ minds.
Finally of note, there are reasons within the internal logic of the Constitution (if not its outright letter) that make a filibuster of a Cabinet nominee more appropriate than a lengthy filibuster of a judicial nominee – and that make a filibuster specifically of the nominee for the Pentagon the single most appropriate of all potential blocking actions against officials requiring presidential appointment with the “advice and consent” of the Senate……
There’s also a whole lot of links to stories providing a boatload of different reasons why Hagel is so objectionable.
There is no good reason to rush this nomination through.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/02/21/why-the-filibuster-is-appropri
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Martin| 2.21.13 @ 3:39PM
By the standards (low, obviously) of Obama cabinet nominees, I don't see why Hagel is so objectionable, except to neocons. We are clearly going to have a policy of strategic retreat, and mostly rightly after the Iraq/Afghanistan disasters and the insane Wilsonian folly of Bush's 2005 Second Inaugural. Any Obama defense secretary would reflect that, but Hagel, who still appears reasonably conservative on economic matters, is less likely than most to fall for the UN globaloney and more likely to actually cut spending. Further his main opponents are McCain and Graham, both loathsome on most issues.
Given the possible alternative Obama nominees, I'd vote to confirm him. He's certainly not worth a filibuster.
JP| 2.21.13 @ 4:11PM
The fact that he reported outside income of $250,000 a year, but refuses to say from whom automatically disqualifies him. Forty years ago, no President would have thought of nominating such a character. Additionally,the comments and views about our only ally in the Mideast (Isreal) are beyond comment. Again, in the old days no President from either party would have given a man like Hagel the job.
Jack in Wi| 2.21.13 @ 3:43PM
Amen Martin. You said it all. Quin can't you get this subject it? It isn't going to happen.
mike 3/505| 2.21.13 @ 3:46PM
...a filibuster of a Cabinet nominee more appropriate than a lengthy filibuster of a judicial nominee...
I disagree. Judicial niminees are lifetime appointments and therefore, have the potential to inflict far more damage. I'd be OK with an up or down vote on Hagel right now. However, I would like to see the Republican caucus prevent the seating of any Obama appointed SCOTUS Judge.
Occam's Tool| 2.21.13 @ 11:23PM
Hagel will result in deadly cuts to the US military, which only a cowardly LOver of Jihadists like FP Jack could support. (FP stands for what his favorite team likes to do---P stands for Packer, F stands for what the Packers Pack)
Oldefarte| 2.22.13 @ 11:50AM
It is a smame that a filibuster is not appropriate or possible against the POTUS!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 2.22.13 @ 11:51AM
SHAME, not smame [typo]!!!!