What would my course be if I were one of the 100 Senators voting for confirmations for Mr Obama’s Presidency. My result may come as a surprise, being as I am a member of the loyal opposition, that I would vote to confirm. Don’t get me wrong, I would advise that many of these appointees are regrettable choices and will do more harm than good to the country and to his administration. Take Mr Geithner and Mr Holder for example. Both I think have lied about the past issues on which they were questioned. I think Mr Geithner withheld taxes knowingly and it is likely that Mr Holder was a willing participated in the pardons-for-cash (and favors) and suggesting Mr Rich during the embarrassing pardon spree at the end of Mr Clinton’s term in office.

However … Federalist paper 76 is clear and I think in fact right. When the Senate intrudes too much into the appointment process then the dangers of which Mr Hamilton warns are evident by the disastrous confirmation proceedings we’ve seen in the last decades when such advice was ignored. A primary example of this is Justice Thomas. The reasons for rejection suggested by Hamiton were:

It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.

That is not the case with either candidate … therefore, I it were up to me I would vote to confirm … even though I think they have considerable talents for prevarication being demonstrated, oddly enough, in these confirmation hearings.

Filed under: Mark O.Politics

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!