More than one way to skin the NRA

[DGuller]

Anyway, discussing other threads is neither here nor there, so let's go back to this discussion.  Would you at least concede that your arguments in this thread have at the very least been laughable and disingenuous?

Discussing other threads is completely here and there.  In the other thread you were once again called out when you handed out insults while being in the wrong, and once again you failed to concede  or to retract your statements.

It's just no fun when you do that.

That's the difference between me and the patient lawyer types.  I regard disingenuous arguments as insults, even if they are stated very politely, and I get straight to the point in response. 

How do you debate with someone who claims that blanket stonewalling of ATF appointees could be for specific disagreements with the candidates, or that organizations can function just as effectively without strong leadership?  When arguments so utterly dumb are being made, you know there is no point debating.  The person making such arguments is in effect saying "I think you are so stupid that you will swallow an argument so utterly nonsensical".  Well, if you imply that I'm stupid, I will imply that you are a bullshitter, and no, I will not apologize for it.

[Admiral Yi]

I regard disingenuous arguments as insults, even if they are stated very politely, and I get straight to the point in response. 

And when it is demonstated that your point is utter BS, you walk away, and do the same thing next time.

[Grey Fox]

I regard disingenuous arguments as insults, even if they are stated very politely, and I get straight to the point in response. 

And when it is demonstated that your point is utter BS, you walk away, and do the same thing next time.

Pointing this out will not help Languish.

[alfred russel]

The process of approving the head of various government agencies is not intended to be a means by which the the legislature can thwart the enforcement of perfectly valid laws they don't like. There are ways of dealing with laws Congress doesn't like, and in fact it is Congress who is responsible for doing so directly.

Not sure I agree. Certainly many (if not most) laws and regulations are not vigorously enforced. Discretion in this area is a critical part of a regulator's job, and that is envisioned when laws are passed.

I'm guessing that you would not be in favor of a federal nominee (to say Attorney General) that promised to vigorously pursue federal drug laws in states that have begun legalization of minor drugs. I don't see how the NRA is so different: they aren't a mainstream organization despite their power, so I don't see it as crazy that they would believe any nominee under Obama and some under Bush are unacceptable. It isn't as though they are trying to block the nomination of Ted Nugent.

[Berkut]

The process of approving the head of various government agencies is not intended to be a means by which the the legislature can thwart the enforcement of perfectly valid laws they don't like. There are ways of dealing with laws Congress doesn't like, and in fact it is Congress who is responsible for doing so directly.

Not sure I agree. Certainly many (if not most) laws and regulations are not vigorously enforced. Discretion in this area is a critical part of a regulator's job, and that is envisioned when laws are passed.

I'm guessing that you would not be in favor of a federal nominee (to say Attorney General) that promised to vigorously pursue federal drug laws in states that have begun legalization of minor drugs. I don't see how the NRA is so different: they aren't a mainstream organization despite their power, so I don't see it as crazy that they would believe any nominee under Obama and some under Bush are unacceptable. It isn't as though they are trying to block the nomination of Ted Nugent.

They are trying to block ANY nomination no matter what policy the nominee intends to carry out. If this person had stated that they intend to enforce the law in some fashion that is within the bounds of their review but not in a manner that Congress approved of, that would be one thing. But that is not the case here. Their problem is not with how the nominee would do the job, but that the nominee would do the job at all, which they do not want done.

I guess if you are ok with that, then fine. Personally, I think it is contemptuous of the very democratic institutions that Congress is there to create.

[DontSayBanana]

The process of approving the head of various government agencies is not intended to be a means by which the the legislature can thwart the enforcement of perfectly valid laws they don't like. There are ways of dealing with laws Congress doesn't like, and in fact it is Congress who is responsible for doing so directly.

To an extent, yes, but you kind of just described the whole reason the "advice and consent" principle exists.  Confirmations are there specifically to avoid appointments that push an agenda.

Where we've run into problems is the abuse it's received.  It's become simply a matter of policy to reject qualified nominees, stripping any meaningful purpose from the rejection in the first place.  It kind of goes hand in hand with how debate seems to be passe in the legislature- these nominations and rejections are almost turning into debate by proxy, cutting huge swaths in federal operations.

[Razgovory]

Serious question:  Who was blocking the nominees back in 2006,2007, and 2008?

[alfred russel]

They are trying to block ANY nomination no matter what policy the nominee intends to carry out. If this person had stated that they intend to enforce the law in some fashion that is within the bounds of their review but not in a manner that Congress approved of, that would be one thing. But that is not the case here. Their problem is not with how the nominee would do the job, but that the nominee would do the job at all, which they do not want done.

I guess if you are ok with that, then fine. Personally, I think it is contemptuous of the very democratic institutions that Congress is there to create.

Using the confirmation process to effect policy is hardly a novel or new concept. I'm not sure what, if any, laws can't be enforced without an ATF head, but the Congress that put whatever requirements into place should have been aware of this possibility. I'm going to double down on this and say that you are attempting to delegitimize a check a balance built into the ATF legislation. 

Anyway, I'm a bit distracted by the threads you started decrying the way the Obama administration is undermining democracy and even federal supremacy by not pursuing the legitimately passed drug laws in Colorado. Oh wait, I guess I'm not. 

[DontSayBanana]

Serious question:  Who was blocking the nominees back in 2006,2007, and 2008?

The one thing that comes to mind is how Reid scheduled Congress to technically stay in session in 2007 so that Bush couldn't make any recess appointments.  Looking up more info on specific blocks now.

[Berkut]

I haven't started any threads either way.

And I've certainly commented on how the Dems do similar things, and did similar things when they were the minority party.

The point here is that it is clear that this has nothing to do with any reverence for the actual Constitution, as the gun nuts claim. They are perfectly happy circumventing the Constitution, as long as it is done in the service of their true goal, protecting their precious, precious guns at any and all costs.

[Admiral Yi]

Serious question:  Who was blocking the nominees back in 2006,2007, and 2008?

I completely missed the relevance of the start dates.  Mea culpa.

[Jacob]

Serious question:  Who was blocking the nominees back in 2006,2007, and 2008?

According to this it was pro gun-rights Republicans: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/25/nation/na-atf25

WASHINGTON — President Bush has accused Senate Democrats of unfairly holding up scores of appointments he has made to the federal bench and other senior government positions. The nominees, many of whom have been awaiting Senate confirmation for months, are being treated like "political pawns," Bush said earlier this month.

Michael J. Sullivan, the president's choice to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, is one of them. But his problems aren't with Democrats.

Sullivan, a U.S. attorney from Massachusetts, was appointed by Bush to head the ATF nearly a year ago, making him one of the president's longer-serving stalled nominees. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination in November, but the next month three Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to put his confirmation on ice.

The opposition, led by gun-rights champions including Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), is part of a long dispute between the ATF and gun dealers. The lawmakers think the agency has been overzealous in enforcing requirements that dealers keep detailed gun-sale records.

The lawmakers say they have decided to hold Sullivan's nomination hostage until he promises that the agency will back off.

[grumbler]

I don't see how the NRA is so different: they aren't a mainstream organization despite their power, so I don't see it as crazy that they would believe any nominee under Obama and some under Bush are unacceptable.

If the NRA were honest enough to admit that they oppose enforcing any gun laws, your point might be valid.  However, the NRA leadership frequently tries to deflect calls for new gun regulations with the argument that "we wouldn't have this problem if the existing laws were simply enforced.  They then do everything they can to make sure that the existing laws don't get enforced (and thus that the gun violence problem worsens).  It is hypocrisy on the face of it.

[The Minsky Moment]

A bigger issue is that the standards for rejecting a President's choice for an executive branch position should be (IMO) very high.  There need to be very serious concerns for the Congress to meddle with President's choice for running offices in his own (executive) branch.  Yes, I know the Democrats helped create this particular mess with John Tower.  But multiple wrongs since then aren't the right fix.

[Admiral Yi]

I would have no problem with amending the Constitution to do away with confirmations.

Maybe keep it for judges, since they sit for life, not just the term of the president.