Ashcroft (McConnell??) Nomination

[Rick Duncan]

I don't recall President-elect Bush ever promising not
to nominate conservatives. Indeed, it would have been
stupid and bigoted for him to write off
representatives from the base that elected him.

He has kept his promise to appoint a politically,
ethnically, and gender[ly] diverse government. But
what liberals seem to want is for a conservative
President who carried 30 states with a conservative
platform to refrain from appointing conservatives.
This is risible. Bush-the-Younger is off to a
fantastic start. I just hope his Supreme Court
appointments are as good as his Cabinet appointments.
He will be a President we can all be proud of.

--Rick Duncan



--- Malla Pollack  wrote:
> A better argument that Bush should nominate more
> main stream persons is
> that he promised to do so the night that Gore
> accepted defeat at the
> hands of the Supreme Court. Bush's problem with
> governance is not just
> the closeness of his election, but his party's lack
> of firm control in
> Congress.  Now having reneged on his first "post
> election" promise, he
> is undermining his own ability to make deals.  Why
> make a deal with
> someone who does not keep promises?
>     As a constitutional matter, of course, the
> public has no right to
> force a politician to keep his promises and no right
> to give specific
> voting directions to Congress persons.
>
> Malla Pollack
> Visiting Assoc. Prof. of Law
> Northern Illinois Univ., College of Law
> DeKalb, Illinois 60115
> 815-753-1160; (fax) 815-753-9499
> mallapollack at niu.edu
>
> >>> kewhitt at PRINCETON.EDU 01/15/01 02:21PM >>>
> "Arthur D. Wolf" wrote:
>
> > With respect to the first question, I tend to
> believe that a
> president who
> > lost the popular vote, won the electoral college
> by two votes, and
> > prevailed in the Supreme Court by one vote
> (depending on how you
> count)
> > should appoint persons with somewhat moderate
> points of view.  After
> all,
> > over half of the voters voted for your more
> progressive opponent.
>
> This strikes me as an interesting, and lately common
> view, but I wonder
> what the
> basis of it is.  Usually, whether it comes to
> elections, legislation,
> or
> football games, we think a win is a win.  In a
> constitutional
> democracy
> electoral winners cannot trample on electoral
> losers, but otherwise
> electoral
> winners are entitled to govern as they will.
>
> I suppose one argument for this claim is simply
> strategic.  Bush may be
> better
> off (e.g., more likely to have his nominations
> confirmed, more likely
> to win
> reelection, more likely to pass legislation) if he
> were to "govern from
> the
> middle."  But that is not obviously true, imposes no
> particular moral
> responsibilities on him, and depends more on the
> composition of the
> Senate than
> on the presidential vote.
>
> More directly principled arguments for this stance
> seem inconsistent
> with our
> current form of government.  In a patrician era,
> Thomas Jefferson felt
> compelled
> to keep on Federalist officials in rough proportion
> to their electoral
> support
> (though not at the Cabinet level).  But the rise of
> permanent parties
> ended that
> ethos -- electoral winners staff all offices with
> their supporters.  In
> the more
> administrative and presidentialist twentieth
> century, we tend to think
> presidents are entitled to staff their
> administration with whomever
> they want --
> the president is the chief executive and independent
> popular leader.
>
> This was a particularly close election, but the
> range of victory in
> presidential
> elections is almost always just a few percentage
> points.  Was Bill
> Clinton
> obliged to appoint 57% conservatives after 1992?
> Was Ronald Reagan
> obliged to
> appoint 49% liberals after 1980 (or 42% after 1984)?
>  Bush won (ugly?)
> with a
> moderate to conservative coalition/party (and is
> himself moderate to
> conservative).  Is it any surprise that he has
> nominated a moderate to
> conservate slate of appointments?  In what sense is
> it inconsistent
> with the
> constitutional form of the presidency as it has
> developed over the past
> two
> centuries?
>
> Keith Whittington


=====
nightfall--
daughters and kitten
purring.
   (haiku, rfd, 12/00)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/