2006-12-05 19:49:01 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Normally, presidential appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. But, the constitution allows the President to make what are known as "Recess Appointments."
A recess appointment is when the President appoints someone to a job that othrwise would require Senate confirmation. The President can only do this when the Senate is not in session. The appointment is temporary, and expires when the current Senate expires (which is in a few days).
President Bush appointed John Bolton to a recess appointment as UN ambassador, because he knew that Bolton was unpopular and likely would not survive a confirmation hearing. Bush hoped that by giving Bolton the job, that Bolton would represent the US well, and when the recess appointment expired that the Senate would see that their fears were not justified, and would confirm him for the remainder of Bush's term.
But because the Senate was taken over by the Democrats, all hope of that vanished. The Democrats detest Bolton, and he has no chance of getting confirmed by them. So, in order to avoid being fired, he resigned.
Hope this helps. Cheers.
2006-12-05 20:40:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He like the rest of us r sick of the arrogant self-serving democrats who would rather watch this country be attacked because they prefer to shout, whine, use hindsight or look for a "thing" that can be used to Blame...The political power games are the safe way to deal with business...simply because making a decision, voting on a bill is dangerous...somebody (voters,lucrative supporters,their opponents) will use it against them..they will be blamed and god forbid loose theier perk filled jobs...
I feel bad for Bolton
He apparently did a very good job as several Un ambassadors have expressed their regret at his departure...they felt he was extremely adept,clear and competent and able to get various parties to focus and make a decision ..
Bolton was blocked by some senator in the committee who doesnt like him who "declared that he wouldnt get the dems votes so his approval or rejection was decided by these few senators on a committee...
..approve or disapprove of a presidential nominee for xx position...the entire senate should have voted BUT NO thats dangerous..because their opponents in the next re-election will ask them WHY.. was the guy not qualified?since he served in the position and managed to secure and deliver many agreements,was well thought of by some in the UN .. WHAT did YOU base your decision on???
OH yeah...i forgot better toremind everyone the DEMs CAN torpedo the country just to get in another anti-Bush/REP power play...
2006-12-06 04:30:51 · answer #2 · answered by cyansure 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
With the Democrats now in control of the Senate(Jan) he could never get confirmed. Heck, he couldn't get confirmed when the Republicans were in control.
2006-12-06 07:03:52 · answer #3 · answered by Tomm 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I guess Mr Walrus had to go back to Seaworld after he knew he would never be appointed to the UN Ambassador post.
Bush was never going to get this Neocon approved.
2006-12-06 08:39:48 · answer #4 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
He was assigned temporarily until; the congress approved him They haven't and now that the Dems control they won't so he left.
2006-12-06 03:53:16 · answer #5 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He saw through the Republican smoke screen about Iraq.
2006-12-06 07:26:55 · answer #6 · answered by Joe 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
he cut and run...all repub's do that, although they acuse other's of the same
2006-12-06 05:10:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋