Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Resigns
Earlier today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation. I wasn't too surprised by the announcement, because I viewed Gonzalez's departure as an inevitability. He had virtually no allies left, other than the president. From the Democrats, he faced ceaseless investigations and flying accusations. The conservative base of the Republicans never really accepted or liked him (especially because he agreed with President Bush's immigration ideas), and therefore wouldn't shed any tears after he left.
Gonzalez's resignation, though it was going to happen eventually, creates an obvious problem. Who will the president nominate to replace Gonzalez, and what realistic chance did that nominee have with a confirmation process under a Democratic majority. Maybe I'm too skeptical, but I don't believe the Democratic leadership is going to like anyone that the president nominates. Beyond that, I think the Democratic Party wants revenge for Republican legislative and executive leadership over most of the last eight years. I believe they want to make any action that the President does excruciatingly difficult. Because of that, the confirmation process of any nominee will be partisan and ugly.
Because of that environment, I would not be surprised if the president tries a recess appointment. A recess appointment allows the president, during a recess of the Senate, to appoint someone to a position without senatorial confirmation. Such an appointment would expire at the end of the Senate's current term. It would avoid the partisan battle over a confirmation. However, the President may view a recess appointment as politically risky and decide not to do it.
Rumors are flying that Michael Chertoff (Homeland Security Secretary) will be Gonzales's replacement. Such a move would then require a replacement for Secretary of Homeland security, which would entail an other partisan battle over confirmation. Whenever President Bush decides to do, it will be a political circus. And the Democrats will milk that circus for all it's worth, no doubt.
(Hat tip: Hot Air)
2 comments:
I may be wrong, but don't I recall the Republican Senate setting secords during the Clinton administration by refusing to even bring his judicial nominations to a vote. I didn't think was fair then because petty, partisan behavior only begets more petty, partisan retribution.
I have slowly come to understand the widsom of the founders on issues like "advice and consent." I used to complain to my father that our divided system of government was a prescription for inaction. Now, that sounds pretty good to me. With Democrats in control of the Senate, a non-recess replacement by Bush be both qualified and centrist to be confirmed. That sounds really good to me, even if it angers Bush's boss, Dick Cheney. I am liking checks and balances on his decision making.
Even though I think Democratic investigations of Gonzales were partisan, I definitely didn't feel too bad about Gonzales leaving. That's probably due to his support of the president's immigration policies.
I agree with you that the inaction caused by the system of checks and balances is actually a good thing. It kind of serves as a brake on potential excesses, sometimes gridlock can be a good thing.
Post a Comment