ATF rolled into the FBI? Suck on that one a while, gun nutters.
QuoteSen. Durbin pressures gun lobby with threat to move ATF authority to FBI
The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate is readying legislation aimed at pressuring the gun lobby to endorse the confirmation of a permanent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) director.
The bill being crafted by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would allow for the ATF's functions to be shifted to another agency, such as the FBI, effectively bypassing the need for the Senate to confirm a director of the embattled bureau.
"It strikes me that if the Senate has not confirmed the head of an agency as important as this, after a certain period of time, that we should transfer the jurisdiction of that agency to the FBI for example, which has a long-term director," Durbin told The Hill.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully lobbied Congress to block every presidential pick to head the ATF since 2006. The group argues that a permanent director could lead to more severe enforcement of firearm laws.
President Obama's nominee to fill the position, ATF acting Director B. Todd Jones, is currently making his way through confirmation proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee but has come up against stiff Republican opposition.
In response, Durbin said he is drawing up a bill that would repeal an appropriations rider banning the attorney general from transferring the ATF's jurisdiction to another agency. The ATF currently falls under the Justice Department's jurisdiction.
If the measure became law and the ATF's authority was transferred to the FBI, a permanent director could be chosen by the director of the FBI and would not have to go through the Senate's confirmation process.
Obama is expected to nominate James Comey to take over as head of the FBI when current Director Robert Mueller's term expires in September. The FBI director is subject to Senate confirmation.
Comey, who served as deputy attorney general under former President George W. Bush, has received a wide range of bipartisan support from senators and is expected to have a much easier confirmation process than any ATF director, in part because the term lasts for 10 years, which spans multiple presidencies.
Obama nominated Jones, who is also the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, to head up the ATF as part of his 23 proposals aimed at strengthening the nation's gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which killed 20 children and six adults.
Jones told senators earlier this month that the lack of permanent leadership at the ATF has not only had an adverse effect on morale within the agency but has also hampered its ability to be as effective as possible.
"It does impact morale," Jones testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I think it's also a fundamental question of good government because, as you mentioned, being a confirmed appointee does carry a certain amount of gravitas.
"You can be a more effective advocate for resources so that you can be accountable to this body, and to the organization that you work with — in this case the Department of Justice. Decisiveness is a critical quality for anyone who is in a leadership position."
Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the panel's ranking member, spurred the committee to launch a staff-led investigation of two complaints filed with the Justice Department's Office of Special Counsel accusing Jones of mismanagement and retaliation in his position as U.S. attorney.
The office has dismissed the mismanagement complaint and notified the committee that Jones has entered into mediation on the retaliation charge.
The Senate began overseeing the confirmation of an ATF director in 2006 when Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) — the House Judiciary Committee chairman at the time — successfully inserted a provision into a reauthorization measure of the Patriot Act. The move gave senators the power to block the president's nomination for the position and use it as a bargaining tool.
Durbin's bill, which he is hoping to introduce before the August recess, has the backing of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The group has dumped millions of dollars into a campaign aimed at combating the NRA's powerful influence, targeting senators who voted against a comprehensive background check bill earlier this year.
The group's director, Mark Glaze, told The Hill he hopes Durbin's bill will prompt the NRA and other gun lobby organizations to drop their objections to Jones's nomination.
"The ATF director is a Senate-confirmed position because that's the way the NRA wanted it, and it's been an unmitigated disaster," Glaze said.
"There's no credible argument against confirming Jones, but there were no credible arguments against confirming the last two nominees. Maybe Durbin can supply the incentive for a more rational debate."
Some of the bill's details are still being worked through, such as whether the ATF would continue to exist as an agency and simply fall under the jurisdiction of another agency head's purview, or whether all of the ATF's functions — in name and action — would be transferred to the other agency as well.
The NRA did not respond to requests for comment.
This is a fine example of how the NRA/gunnut cry of "ZOMG WHY DONT WE ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW ONES!" is so obviously complete and utter hypocrisy.
They actively attempt to thwart the enforcement of existing laws.
And they can thank their own party for making it so much easier to do in shuffling ATF out from under Treasury to Justice in the Homeland Security Shuffle.
QuoteLiddy: When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms thugs come to kill your wife and children, to try to disarm you and they open fire on you. When they come at the point of a gun, force and violence, when you're going to defend yourself, use that Gerand [M-1 rifle]. That thing is 30-06, and it'll take 'em right out.
Caller: And yes, aim for the head.
Liddy: Absolutely.
QuoteLiddy: Arm yourself. Get instructed in how to shoot straight.
Caller: I've got weapons.
Liddy: Absolutely. And don't give 'em up, and don't register either.
Caller: No way. And I'm aiming between the eyes.
Liddy: There you go. That way their flak jackets won't protect them.
From G. Gordon Liddy former GOP talk show host.
He should stick to plumbing.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
This is a fine example of how the NRA/gunnut cry of "ZOMG WHY DONT WE ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW ONES!" is so obviously complete and utter hypocrisy.
They actively attempt to thwart the enforcement of existing laws.
I don't see why it is necessarily hypocrisy. Or even dishonest. I think the following views are consistent:
-in a perfect world, very few gun laws.
-if we have to have gun laws, hopefully they are few and unenforced.
-it is better to have a few enforced laws than many sporadically enforced ones.
In that case, you try to repeal and undermine the laws on the books, and when gun control sentiment picks up, you are okay with enforcement in order to avoid new legislation.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 10:29:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
This is a fine example of how the NRA/gunnut cry of "ZOMG WHY DONT WE ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW ONES!" is so obviously complete and utter hypocrisy.
They actively attempt to thwart the enforcement of existing laws.
I don't see why it is necessarily hypocrisy. Or even dishonest. I think the following views are consistent:
-in a perfect world, very few gun laws.
-if we have to have gun laws, hopefully they are few and unenforced.
-it is better to have a few enforced laws than many sporadically enforced ones.
In that case, you try to repeal and undermine the laws on the books, and when gun control sentiment picks up, you are okay with enforcement in order to avoid new legislation.
Except they are not ok with enforcement - they try very hard to make it impossible to enforce completely valid laws.
So when they say "Hey, the government should not pass new laws, rather they should just enforce the existing laws" while at the same time the same people actively attempt to make it impossible to enforce existing laws, it is clear they are not actually operating in good faith. They are attempting to actively undermine the democratic process and the rule of law and the Constitution.
Which is utter hypocrisy, considering their fundamental war cry is supposedly a slavish devotion to the Constitution.
Of course, we all know they don't actually give two shits about the Constitution, they just really love their guns.
Berkut has a point. LaPierre has been saying that the problem has been lack of enforcement, and that the NRA has never hindered enforcement of standing gun laws.
It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 10:52:06 AM
It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.
To be fair, the guy being held up simply said that it harms the agency's efficacy, which is perfectly sensible when you consider the guy in charge needs to have some authority for his decisions to have any teeth.
The journos are the ones putting the enforcement spin on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 10:52:06 AM
It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.
There is no reason not to confirm him except as a means of keeping guns laws from being enforced.
And there are multiple other examples of this kind of activity by the NRA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 10:52:06 AM
It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.
It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?
How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.
This is just like Yi supposedly neutral questioning of laws to stop people from voting.
He pretends like it is simply a neutral observation, as if these things are done in a vacuum, and those who do them have not motive behind them, and we should simply look at them with no context.
There is a reason they go to considerable effort to block a confirmation, and there is a reason they go to considerable effort to "reform" voter registration despite no evidence of the problem they claim they are fixing actually existing.
And there is a reason Yi has a completely consistent track record in what side his inevitable "questions" fall on.
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2013, 11:06:34 AM
It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?
How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.
Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept. From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2013, 11:06:34 AM
It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?
How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.
Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept. From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.
Of course you have reason to believe it is different at the ATF. People at the ATF have said so - the acting director has said so. Common sense says so.
Large organizations don't spend money on leadership if they don't think it matters whether or not it exists. An auto-worker most certianly does NOT put a bumper on the car regardless of effective leadership - absent effective leadership he is likely to put it on the wrong car, in the wrong manner, or not put it on at all. He might not even have a car to put it on, or a bumper to begin with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2013, 11:06:34 AM
It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?
How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.
Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept. From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.
Actually I've seen the opposite. A police department without effective leadership is a fucking mess. Corruption, abuse of powers, laziness, etc. You got to keep a close eye on those guys. Don't know about a car company, but I imagine that things like engineering, marketing, supply etc require some sort of direction. Or are of you the opinion that companies don't actually need leaders?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 11:34:22 AMEffective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept. From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.
Interesting. I suppose we'll just have to disagree about that.
It does raise the question why the NRA has lobbied (successfully since 2006) for preventing a director to be put in place at the ATF; if leadership is immaterial to the carrying out of the duties of the ATF, it seems a bit pointless to block it.
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2013, 12:05:34 PM
It does raise the question why the NRA has lobbied (successfully since 2006) for preventing a director to be put in place at the ATF; if leadership is immaterial to the carrying out of the duties of the ATF, it seems a bit pointless to block it.
Why not the obvious answer: they've disagreed with the nominees proposed?
Berkut: Leaving aside the issue of whether we should accept at face value the words of a nominee lobbying for confirmation, that's not what he said. He talked about how morale would improve through the "gravitas" afforded by confirmation, and the greater weight he would carry in Congress.
Your argument is that they've disagreed with every single nominee, and this isn't about simply blocking ANY nominee?
I don't believe for a moment that even you believe anything that obviously untrue.
And I notice that once again you simply refuse to acknowledge most of my argument, and simply choose to respond to the smallest portion that you can make a (weak) stab at refuting.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 12:24:51 PM
Your argument is that they've disagreed with every single nominee, and this isn't about simply blocking ANY nominee?
I don't believe for a moment that even you believe anything that obviously untrue.
Kay.
QuoteAnd I notice that once again you simply refuse to acknowledge most of my argument, and simply choose to respond to the smallest portion that you can make a (weak) stab at refuting.
Whatever. You got ass-raped in the voting thread and pranced around like you were He-Man. Not much different here. I think I'm done with you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 12:28:38 PM
Whatever. You got ass-raped in the voting thread and pranced around like you were He-Man. Not much different here. I think I'm done with you.
Wait you won the voting thread? LOL.
I've been to the voting thread. Berkut's ass looked pretty intact from where I was. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 12:21:14 PMWhy not the obvious answer: they've disagreed with the nominees proposed?
Yeah, I think that's the case. However, since this has been going on since 2006 it seems fairly reasonable to conclude that the main disagreement is that any proposed director would lead the ATF in carrying out its appointed function.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 12:35:37 PM
I've been to the voting thread. Berkut's ass looked pretty intact from where I was. :hmm:
What else are you going to say? You were his freaking tag team partner. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 12:40:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 12:35:37 PM
I've been to the voting thread. Berkut's ass looked pretty intact from where I was. :hmm:
What else are you going to say? You were his freaking tag team partner. :lol:
Yes, me and dguller are well known tag team partners on political topics. Why, we are practically interchangeable!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 12:40:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 12:35:37 PM
I've been to the voting thread. Berkut's ass looked pretty intact from where I was. :hmm:
What else are you going to say? You were his freaking tag team partner. :lol:
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?
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 10:36:49 AM
Except they are not ok with enforcement - they try very hard to make it impossible to enforce completely valid laws.
So when they say "Hey, the government should not pass new laws, rather they should just enforce the existing laws" while at the same time the same people actively attempt to make it impossible to enforce existing laws, it is clear they are not actually operating in good faith. They are attempting to actively undermine the democratic process and the rule of law and the Constitution.
Which is utter hypocrisy, considering their fundamental war cry is supposedly a slavish devotion to the Constitution.
Of course, we all know they don't actually give two shits about the Constitution, they just really love their guns.
You ignored what I wrote.
I don't think it is hypocrisy to be against enforcing regulation, except as an alternative to additional legislation.
I also don't think you subvert democratic institutions (or its process) by working through them. I don't have a clue what the head of the ATF does, but assuming US law has been set up in such a way that certain laws are not enforceable if there isn't a head of US law, I don't see how you undermine democracy by working through elected representatives to keep there from being an ATF head.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 12:24:51 PM
Your argument is that they've disagreed with every single nominee, and this isn't about simply blocking ANY nominee?
I don't believe for a moment that even you believe anything that obviously untrue.
Kay.
QuoteAnd I notice that once again you simply refuse to acknowledge most of my argument, and simply choose to respond to the smallest portion that you can make a (weak) stab at refuting.
Whatever. You got ass-raped in the voting thread and pranced around like you were He-Man. Not much different here. I think I'm done with you.
So asking you to respond to what I post rather than ignore it is "prancing around like a he-man and getting ass raped"?
Yeah, you probably should be done with me if that is about your level of ability to respond to simple requests.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 12:48:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 10:36:49 AM
Except they are not ok with enforcement - they try very hard to make it impossible to enforce completely valid laws.
So when they say "Hey, the government should not pass new laws, rather they should just enforce the existing laws" while at the same time the same people actively attempt to make it impossible to enforce existing laws, it is clear they are not actually operating in good faith. They are attempting to actively undermine the democratic process and the rule of law and the Constitution.
Which is utter hypocrisy, considering their fundamental war cry is supposedly a slavish devotion to the Constitution.
Of course, we all know they don't actually give two shits about the Constitution, they just really love their guns.
You ignored what I wrote.
I don't think it is hypocrisy to be against enforcing regulation, except as an alternative to additional legislation.
I also don't think you subvert democratic institutions (or its process) by working through them. I don't have a clue what the head of the ATF does, but assuming US law has been set up in such a way that certain laws are not enforceable if there isn't a head of US law, I don't see how you undermine democracy by working through elected representatives to keep there from being an ATF head.
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.
I do not at all agree that it is "working through democratic institutions" to simply interfere with the ability to organizations to function because you don't like the core function of the organization, but you know you lack the political ability to actually change or repeal that function.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 12:51:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 01:04:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 01:06:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2013, 01:04:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 12:55:59 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 12:55:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 12:55:59 PM
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.
Serious question: Who was blocking the nominees back in 2006,2007, and 2008?
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
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. :P
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. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 01:39:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 01:39:41 PM
Serious question: Who was blocking the nominees back in 2006,2007, and 2008?
I completely missed the relevance of the start dates. Mea culpa.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 01:39:41 PM
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
QuoteWASHINGTON — 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 03:02:13 PM
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.
It's tangled pretty deeply in checks and balances. The problem is that the Constitution doesn't require that the Senate confirm this particular appointment, but it's also clear that the appointment is Congress' to give to the President, not the President's to take from the Congress.
Quote[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2013, 02:55:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
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.
They are an advocacy organization. I rather doubt they are against enforcing all gun laws, though they are certainly against some that have been passed. Arguing against new laws on the basis that laws that are on the books already could have prevented some action isn't hypocricy even if they disapprove of the laws or are working to actively block their enforcement.
I'm not going to say that the message of the NRA is perfectly clear of anything that could twisted into being considered hypocrisy from some point of view. But their political message is quite consistently enunciated, and their actions are consistent wtih that message: they are gun nutters. It is the same with the ACLU, NARAL, WWF, PETA, the Cato Institute, etc.: if you are screaming "HYPOCRISY" against them, I think you are either being lazy or the volume of hypocrisy in the world must be overwhelming to you.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 03:32:09 PM
I think you are either being lazy or the volume of hypocrisy in the world must be overwhelming to you.
Well if they are indeed loudly proclaiming that they value and support the enforcement of the laws, while in fact NOT supporting the enforcement of the laws...that is what hypocrisy is. I mean that is the textbook definition. It would be no more lazy than calling an apple an apple. Not that I am saying the NRA is doing either of these things, I do not really follow their activities.
Besides, I am not sure every organization you listed loudly claims to support something they are in fact trying to undermine. That is not necessarily a requirement for an advocacy organization.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 03:32:09 PM
I think you are either being lazy or the volume of hypocrisy in the world must be overwhelming to you.
Well if they are indeed loudly proclaiming that they value and support the enforcement of the laws, while in fact NOT supporting the enforcement of the laws...that is what hypocrisy is. I mean that is the textbook definition. It would be no more lazy than calling an apple an apple. Not that I am saying the NRA is doing either of these things, I do not really follow their activities.
Besides, I am not sure every organization you listed loudly claims to support something they are in fact trying to undermine. That is not necessarily a requirement for an advocacy organization.
After there is a serious school shooting, they make the enforcement argument. Does the NRA actually argue for stronger enforcement? I don't know. I doubt this evening I will see a bumper sticker or ad from the NRA/NRA membership "Lets enforce our gun laws"--I probably will see one telling the government getting its hands off our guns or something to that effect.
At the end of the day, I think most people have a good idea what the NRA is all about and where it will stand on relevant issues. There is a lot in Washington you can't say that about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2013, 11:06:34 AM
It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?
How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.
Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept. From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership. I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.
"Armies don't need generals"
Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2013, 04:46:22 PM
"Armies don't need generals"
"Can they get by with generals who have not been confirmed by the Senate?"
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 20, 2013, 03:22:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 03:02:13 PM
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.
It's tangled pretty deeply in checks and balances. The problem is that the Constitution doesn't require that the Senate confirm this particular appointment, but it's also clear that the appointment is Congress' to give to the President, not the President's to take from the Congress.
Quote[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Not clear what you are saying here. The ATF appointment used to be vested in the President alone (as per the inferior officers clause), then Congress made it subject to the normal appointment with advise and consent procedure. Either way the appointment is the President's to make and the only difference is whether Senate advice and consent is required. My point (and I take it that YI agrees) is that if the Senate is very aggressive with withholding consent as to Exec. branch appointments, the consequence is to undermine separation of powers by giving Congress to much power to meddle with and disrupt the Executive. Which lo and behold is exactly what is happening in this instance.
Yup.
I might even go further than that. Who gives a shit what the Senate thinks about a nominee? It's not their fucking branch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 09:22:57 AM
ATF rolled into the FBI? Suck on that one a while, gun nutters.
Yawn, oh did I say :yawn:
They should roll the ATF, DEA, and probably a couple others into the FBI. We've got the military to protect us from overly powerful police chiefs, don't need competing agencies.