Legal Commentary

The Sanders Hold On The Bernanke Renomination

By Big Tent Democrat

In celebrating Senator Bernie Sanders' hold of the renomination of Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman, the bloggers at Open Left are not explaining what makes the Sanders' hold something to celebrate but the Republican hold on other Obama nominations outrageous obstructionism.

Setting aside how you feel about the President's nominees (Yea! Dawn Johnsen, Boo! Bernanke), there is a principled reason why Sanders' hold can be applauded while the Republican hold on Administration posts is unacceptable obstructionism. Posts like Fed Chairman or judicial appointments are independent and extend well beyond the term of a Presidency. Posts like head of the OLC (the post for which Johnsen is nominated) are, at the most, for the duration of a particular Presidential term. In short, a President should have a free hand to choose who will serve in his Administration. He should NOT have a free hand to choose who will sit on the Supreme Court or on bodies that act independently, like the Fed (where member have 10 year terms.) More . . .

I've made this argument in the past (during the nuclear option days of 2005). I thought the Republicans arguing for the nuclear option for judicial nomination have it exactly backwards. It is nominations like the Supreme Court where the filibuster is justified. It is Administration positions that should not be subject to holds and filibusters - a President elected by the people should have the right to staff his Administration as he sees fit. When his Administration ends, these appointees will be gone too, if the next President so chooses.

Supreme Court justices last a lifetime. The Senate has every right to exert its influence regarding who will fill such posts.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on December 03, 2009 (boomark / email).