16 November 2007

More Like This, Please

After six years' worth of Bush abusing the constitutional power of recess appointments, finally congressional leaders are doing something to rein him in:

Dems to Bush: No recess appointments for you

Reid is simply not going to let the Senate go into recess, preventing the Little Emperor for doing an end-around and bypassing it. Small, but nice.

And more on the Death of Irony -- Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out this gem:

It's genuinely hard to believe that the writers of George Bush's speech last night to the Federalist Society weren't knowingly satirizing him. They actually had him say this:
When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities -- and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others.
Then they went even further and this came out:
The President's oath of office commits him to do his best to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." I take these words seriously. I believe these words mean what they say.
To top it all off -- by which point they must have been cackling uncontrollably -- they had him say this:
Others take a different view. . . . They forgot that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words. (Applause.) Ours is the oldest written Constitution in the world. It is the foundation of America's experiment in self-government. And it will continue to live only so long as we continue to recognize its wisdom and division of authority.
Much more after the link.


  1. Presumably, you felt just as much outrage over Bill Clinton's many recess appointments. Or are they only "unconsitutional" when a Republican makes them?

  2. catron,

    He said, "After six years' worth of Bush abusing the constitutional power of recess appointments,"

    Claiming someone abuses a power is not the same as claiming some is behaving in an unconstitutional manner.

    Do you understand the difference?

  3. More Not Like This Please.

    Medical blog.

    Medical blog.

    Medical blog.

    Medical. Blog.

    Medicalblog. MEDICAL. BLAWG.

    Liberal politics from Shadowfax=Bad. Medical posts from Shadowfax=Good.

    absit iniuria verbis,
    Nurse K

  4. JimII,

    Your comment is a study in unintentional irony. You produce a schoolmarmish lecture on the meaning of the post while completely missing the point of my two-sentence comment. Let me help you:

    Shadowfax, like most faux-progressives (presumably including you), applies a double standard regarding all matters Bush (and Republicans in general), Thus, we have high dudgeon on Bush’s recess appointments, despite the fact that the same tactic was used by Clinton, Carter, et al.

    I hope this has cleared things up for you.

  5. Nurse K, I quite agree with your content valuation.

    But it's Shadowfax's blog. He's got the keys; he can write what he likes.

    It's much easier on the blood pressure to say to myself, "There he goes again ..." and skim over those parts that are not interesting to me.

  6. But from the liberal side, if I had to end up in an emergency room, Shadowfax is about the only ER blogger who doesn't scare the dickens out of me. Heaven forfend I dare to speak Spanish, be female (and especially pregnant or old), gay, in drag, or poor and end up in the departments some of those folks work in.

    (Most of the conservative ER bloggers make plenty of conservative political comments, too.)

  7. Catron,

    Your clarification makes a different point than your original statement. It would be hypocritical to say that what Bush was doing was unconstitutional, because that is a threshold argument. Unconstitutional behavior is necessarily wrong.

    By contrast, to say, as Shadowfax did, that Bush was abusing his constitutional power, means that Shadowfax was commenting on the nature of Bush's use of the power.

    Clinton did not abuse his use of the constitutional power because he used it differently. Now, you are welcome to disagree, but it doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just makes me have a different opinion.

    Also, there is nothing faux about my progressive values or Shadowfax's. You may not be a progressive, which is fine. But I very genuinely believe that all people have value and that we should work together to make sure they are treated like they have value. That's was a progressive is. See e.g., end of slavery, women's suffrage, socialized retirement security, trust busting, civil rights movement, conservationism, and now socialized medicine. All progressive. Nothing faux about it.


  8. But from the liberal side, if I had to end up in an emergency room, Shadowfax is about the only ER blogger who doesn't scare the dickens out of me.

    That's the nicest thing anyone has said about me in ages...


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.