Senators Vow Confirmation Delays for Key Obama Posts

Want answers on Benghazi, Fed books

  • Share
  • Read Later

Like TIME on Facebook for more breaking news and current events from around the globe!

Republican senators threatened this week to delay confirmations for two key posts in the Obama administration over continued questions about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham said they will block the nomination of Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve until they get more information about the Benghazi attack, where four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya, were killed. McCain and Graham also threatened to filibuster the nomination of Jeh Johnson to head the Department of Homeland Security.

This week, Sen. Rand Paul also threatened to block Yellen’s nomination unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allows a vote on Paul’s legislation to audit the Federal Reserve. Both Paul and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, have called for abolishing the Fed altogether. While the senators can block Yellen’s confirmation, they can’t actually stop her from taking the post. As TIME wrote earlier this month, Yellen is Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, and she will automatically become the acting chair when Ben Bernanke’s term expires on Feb. 1.

[UPI]

[CBS News]

21 comments
AZWI
AZWI

McCain knows absolutely nothing on either the military or foreign affairs. All McCain wants are wars bombings and invasions

drudown
drudown

Actually, a much more pressing question is under what possible legal authority can ANY member of the Senate subvert the "Appointment Power" our Founding Fathers engraved upon the Constitution? 

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions as applied to any official proceedings [Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181]; in order to maintain the integrity of the government, judicial estoppel precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position in disputes involving the same set of operative facts. Id.; Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 917, 943. Here, the GOP members of the Senate expressly assert that "the Appointment Power" is not "really incumbent on us until our Despotic demands are met", not unlike the GOP Congress' absurd claims that Article I, Section 8's express language mandating Congress raise revenue for the People's "general WELFARE" is somehow "discretionary", despite the fact that the evidentiary record proves the same Speaker, Senate and Congress have all repeatedly admitted, acknowledged and, indeed, required that the Congress pause and take formal notice of the absolute importance of a “strict construction” of the Social Contract in dispassionately discharging a wide range of government duties under the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, e.g., Judicial Confirmation hearings, et al. What, "the law of Judicial Estoppel, the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement and the Constitutional Appointment Power" is "no longer the law"? How is that not what these Public Servants are "really saying" with their deliberate malfeasance and "refusal" to act on our COLLECTIVE behalf? EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN- that is, whether 'liberal' or 'conservative' is INJURED by this gross subversion of our Founding Fathers' system of government. 

True or False?


Nor can the GOP Senators cite to any “Rational Basis” that furthers a Legitimate State Interest in failing to perform the aforementioned "Advice and Consent" requirements of their office, or the Congress doing their EXPRESS, legal obligation to RAISE REVENUE- not just the legal obligation to promulgate a Budget on an annual basis, but also the affirmative duty to engage in a robust debate over the cost/benefit of the State Action. To be sure, the undisputed fact that the Speaker and his brethren see the Filibuster device and other procedural rules as a means to affirmatively thwart the function of government is likewise
probative evidence of Foreign Money corrupting the integrity of the political process and this “fast and loose” official conduct likewise implicates Judicial Estoppel. See, Id. (“judicial estoppel prevents agents or elected officials from obtaining an unfair
advantage or take incompatible positions, particularly when doing so would result in a manifest injustice”).

Is there not ONE honorable member of Congress willing to stand up for the Constitution? 

"Our safety is not in blindness, but in facing the danger of corruption." - Schiller

Erugo
Erugo

"Both Paul and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, have called for abolishing the Fed altogether" That's not true. Sen. Paul has only called for an audit. This could very well be just an honest mistake by Nate Rawlings, but it could also be an attempt to attribute to Rand Paul views that are still considered radical by most Americans.

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

This is all about Lindsey Graham being challenged by the tea party in re-election campaign next year. These people are just reprehensible. Country first, right?

labman57
labman57

How about only blocking presidential nominations based on merits of one's concerns about the appointment and reservations about the qualifications of the nominee?

Wouldn't that be refreshing?

jmac
jmac

Delay Yellen over Benghazi.   Is Wall Street listening?  Is the Chamber of Commerce listening?  Is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal finally going to get it?  How low do Republicans have to go before the light bulb goes on?    

jsfox
jsfox

I get it, it's a contest to see how low they can drive Republican approval numbers.

Curious_Quiche
Curious_Quiche

Aahhhh symbolic protests to stop appointments they can't actually stop to get brownie points with a base that understands less than they do. This should be the Republican party mission statement. Better yet, they should all get bent.

ARTRaveler
ARTRaveler

The need to remember that if, and I know that is a really big IF, a Republican is ever elected president again, the favor will be returned.  Hell he could go minutes without a secretary of anything. Someone needs to ask McCain whether he wants to be the one on the TV Sunday shows after an attack on the US while he held up the approval of the head of the security agency.  And the Senate should call for a hearing on what Bush 2 knew about WMDs in Iraq and when did he know it and whether he ever knew what he was doing as puppet-in-chief.  

barneydidit
barneydidit

Well this just clearly demonstrates why Obama is the most divisive President in history. I mean first he takes the Oath of Office...come on...a Black Democrat taking the Oath of Office? He may as well have just gone ahead and slapped Rush LImbaugh in the face.  Then he compounds the damage by trying to pass bills? WTF was he thinking?  And now he wants to appoint people to his cabinet in an attempt to govern the country?  What's next...he tries to stay in office for the entire second term!!!?

MrObvious
MrObvious

Do your fudging jobs. No one hired you to obstruct the basic functions of our government because you continue chasing fake outrage.

Ohiolib
Ohiolib

Will Graham hold his breathe till he turns blue unless obama resigns?

tkulaga
tkulaga

Boys will be boys. When will our warmongers McCain and Graham grow up?

notsacredh
notsacredh

Don't negotiate with terrorists.

drudown
drudown

@Erugo 

I find it rather disturbing that these allegedly "Libertarian" members of the GOP keep proposing these Despotic changes to our Founding Fathers' system of government- whether it is "abolishing" the IRS or the Fed…this is subversive to the very rule of law.

We are a Nation of precedent. 

We are a Nation of laws. 

Our elected officials have no "discretion" to change it according to their "money donors' wishes" to change it so they can manipulate the "rules of the game" in another direction. 

"The offender of precedent never pardons." - George Herbert

drudown
drudown

@ARTRaveler 

That analysis conspicuously omits the utter fiscal waste and blatant subversion of the rule of law. 

One party- regardless of being the 'majority' or 'minority', much less 'liberal' or 'conservative' cannot just "opt out" of public service while collecting paychecks written by the People they swore an oath to serve- not to mention to uphold the very Constitution they claim their "need to get more answers on Beghazi" or ________ allows them to contravene.

This is arguably the most egregious breach of the Appointment Power in the entire History of the United States. How is Sen. Leahy not acting in the People's interest and allowing it to "unfold" like the $24 BILLION "shut down"?

If this subversion is not enjoined by changing these rules being used to thwart the function of government, the GOP is going to "default" on the United States obligation and, as in every other instance, simply "play dumb" like their Foreign money super-PAC donors are demanding they do. 

How is that NOT a blatant breach of Due Process for the likes of me and you?

"Opportunity makes a thief." - Francis Bacon

We are Nation of laws, or we are not. 

Away with this shopworn notion that, what, the "convenience" of violating the 4th Amendment is relevant to its Constitutional dimension? 

That is just more "law according to the the Decider", which turns the Appointment Power and the very Bill of Rights on its head.

Please cite one rational reason why the State is not LAWFULLY bound to follow our Constitution's plain meaning and Supreme Court's precedent instead?

"I think, as Justice Brandeis says, that apart from the Constitution the government ought not to use evidence obtained and only obtained by a criminal act [i.e., warrantless wiretapping/electronic surveillance]…it is desirable that criminals should be detected, and to that end all available evidence should be used. It also is desirable that the government should not itself foster and pay for other crimes, when they are the means by which the evidence is to be obtained…we have to choose, and for my part I think it is a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part." - Justice Holmes, Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438


Ivy_B
Ivy_B

@ARTRaveler Last time we had a Republican president and Democrats tried to block some extremist judges the majority in the Senate said that they would simply use the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster. If we get a Republican president, we'll like also have a Republican Senate and then we are toast.

PaulDirks
PaulDirks

@ARTRaveler I suspect they realize that a Republican president is no longer a viable possibility. But as long as they can keep fundraising and spreading feces around, life is good.


drudown
drudown

@tkulaga 

I fail to see how ascribing their subversion of the Constitutional Appointment Power to "being childlike" is either accurate or constructive. 

What rights are next?

The 2nd Amendment? Free Speech?