The Crossed Pond

Real Clear Politics has been particularly provocative (and good) lately, but this really jumped out at me. Ron Cass makes the wheezy, labored argument that Democrats, if they oppose the presumed nomination of Ted Olsen to the Attorney General’s office, will be doing irreparable damage to the office of the presidency. I’m sorry, the Office of the Presidency.

Before the Democrats and their friends do lasting damage to the Presidency by undercutting prerogatives of office historically recognized under Democrats and Republicans alike, let’s hope that cooler heads prevail, that the rhetorical temperature subsides, and that Senator Reid decides to wait for nominations and hearings – and even votes from his colleagues – before announcing results. That will do far more than high-strung editorials and unilateral pronouncements to advance the rule of law.

Ugh.

Since when did self-described conservatives start worshiping on the altar of the executive? Since when is an executive decision justified solely because it’s the executive making it? It’s the Democrats who are going to be doing lasting damage to the Presidency? Really?

This is a Presidency that has actively pushed for the most comprehensive, though piecemeal (because they don’t have the balls or votes to get it through head-on), redefinition of the office of the Presidency since Nixon. This is the Presidency that has declared itself, almost in more ways than one can count, above reproach, above transparency, above law. From an unwillingness to cooperate with even the most benign subpoenas, to the redefinition of signing statements essentially giving the president the ability to rewrite legislative mandate at his whim, to the MASSIVE abuse of the sort of “tradition” that Cass cites to justify the sort of secrecy and cloak-and-dagger unaccountability that would make Sandy Berger blush, and on and on and on. This president has redefined the basic structure and balance of American government, vis-a-vie his massive breaking with tradition (and law!) on the scope and power of the executive, more than any Democrat in my lifetime (and yours) has ever DARED. And Democrats are damaging the office by threatening to oppose an Attorney General nomination? Are you f**king kidding me?

But Cass goes on:

When liberals announce, before the President has made a selection, that these and other well-qualified individuals should not be selected and will not be confirmed – without waiting for a hearing, listening to what the individual selected has to say, or finding out what other respected lawyers and legal scholars say of them – those liberals subvert the very rule of law they purport to defend.

Funny how the phrase “rule of law” suddenly reappears in Republican rhetoric, after a slow, painful death. It doesn’t apply to the president casually redefining law to suit him, or his designs of the office, no matter how radical a departure from presumed settled “law” it is. Nor does it apply to waving off 200+ years of “tradition” and “precedent” and, you know, “law” (as in the case of, say, habeas corpus, and torture). But it does apparently apply to congressmen who don’t vote with the President when Ron Cass thinks they should.

Newsflash: THERE IS NO LAW DICTATING HOW A LEGISLATOR MUST VOTE. Democratic Senators can vote down nominees for not being blonde enough if they damn well please. They have to then face the voters, of course, but beyond that, they’re CERTAINLY not accountable to some vague standards based on how Republican commentators think they ought to vote. Misappropriating the phrase “rule of law” to apply in this case is beyond ridiculous, it’s pathological. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO GET HIS NOMINEES THROUGH. Even the casual suggestion that he somehow does is a repugnant, ridiculous redefinition of the phrase. If “the rule of law” is what Cass thinks is the operating concept here, the phrase truly has no meaning.

But he goes on!

Their pronouncements are rooted in the supposition that any Republican with any ties to the President, Vice-President, or key advisers cannot be trusted to make reasoned decisions on legitimate grounds. That is a shocking and baseless accusation, one that if indulged undermines the ability in good faith to function in a two-party system.

Baseless except for the fact that the LAST Attorney General to pass the nomination vote ultimately could not be trusted to make reasoned decisions on legitimate grounds because of his ties to the President? Or the President’s first instinct nominee to the Supreme Court (Harriet Miers). Or his Rudy-inspired nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security? Or his FEMA chief? Or his UN ambassador, given a recess appointment because he couldn’t pass the Congressional vote (how’s that for “tradition” and “rule of law”)? Or dozens of judicial nominees, also given recess appointments? I could go on.

That George W. Bush might nominate someone whose personal loyalty to Bush might get in the way of his ability to make rational, independent decisions, and that he might pursue said nomination outside of “ability in good faith to function in the two-party system”….this is a baseless notion?

Again, are you f**king kidding me? How much of a bubble do you have to be in to say that with a straight face?

Don’t get me wrong, the last stint as Bush’s attorney general has to be the most thankless ans shitty assignment since…well, since the appointment of our war czar. And I’m expressing no opinion on the actual merits of Olsen as AG. But to say that Democrats who might think to oppose the nomination — Democrats who are duly elected (presumably, at least in part, to oppose Bush’s vision of how the country ought to be run — are somehow bligated to vote carte blanche for any presidential nominee that passes first muster, based on some murky idea of “tradition”, lest they damage the Presidency itself and the rule of law, is not just patently ridiculous, it’s la-la land.

I’m sorry, but this president has long, long, long ago used up any “traditional deference” cred he might have had. Democrats would do well — and would be doing the executive office a service — if they were more skeptical of presidential fiat. That is, after all, what they were duly elected for.

Even the soft-version of Cass’ position, that the burden of proof on presidential nominations lies with Congress, not with the president, offends me. Any nomination from the president should be de facto confirmed unless Congress can prove different? In my mind, the president ought to be the one to have to CONVINCE our duly elected representatives that his nominees deserve confirmation. If he can’t, tough titty. Cry me a f**king river. If your party has lost so many seats that you have to heavily compromise on your appointments — well, that’s the people talking.

Listen, these appointment go before Congress for a reason. And that reason is NOT so Congress can show the proper deferment to the President. That’s the operating rule of law here. To get a nominee through, you have to get a majority of the legislature to approve him. THAT IS THE LAW, and it is the law for a reason (that “tradition” does not trump). We should somehow de facto scrap that system because the majority party is giving the President a hard time about his proven failures over the last 7 years?

Even a good party-line Republican ought to recognize the insanity in that (and if they don’t, I’ll be re-quoting this article a lot every time the next Democratic president attempts to overreach in ways that have become common under Bush, and you watch the party faithful on the right howl when President Clinton makes a recess appointment, or nominates somebody who has been a Clinton faithful, or issues a signing statement to reinterpret a law contrary to its original intent).

And to say that the office of the presidency is wounded if we don’t show proper deference to all executive wishes except those we can impeach for is so ridiculous, and yet so pervasive, that it reiterates for me why Republican stalwarts are so damaging at present to the very foundations of our system of government.