Logic

The President has used the rarely exercised “recess appointment” power to install John Bolton as the United States’ Ambassador to the United Nations.

As one might expect the Democrats aren’t too happy with this news. (H/T Smash for the DK link)

Ted Kennedy, who raised himself off his favorite barstool at the local tavern, spewed forth thusly.

Abuse of power? Uhh, well I guess it’s too much to actually think Kennedy uses the Constitution for anything other than a drink coaster, but perhaps he should read Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

I would accept the whole abuse of power scenario if, you know, an actual abuse of power occured.

And what secrecy? Correct me if I am wrong here, but did President Bush not name John Bolton as his nominee as US Ambassador to the United Nations several months ago? And during that time did John Bolton not have a confirmation hearing? Also, has the White House not talked about the possibility of a recess appointment for weeks? You know if that’s “secrecy” in Ted’s World I would really like to hear his definition of openness.

John Kerry, not wanting to be left the fuzzy end of the lollipop when it comes to making idiotic statements.Uh, does someone wish to point out to Senator John that being denied an up or down vote on his nomination due to obstructionist tactics by Senate Democrats, does not equate to being “rejected twice by the Senate”, or would that be considered rude?

Over the past 2 days or so Fox News pundit, Alan Colmes, has been saying that President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts, is a “partsian” and therefore should be disqualified from sitting on the highest court in the land—let us leave aside for the moment that Justice Roberts has been sitting on the D.C. Court Appeal (tradtionally seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court) for the past two years and during that time Mr. Colmes hasn’t raised any objections to his alleged partsianship.

Partsian, in this instance of course, meaning Republican. So, one could reasonably infer that Mr. Colmes wished that the President nominated someone with no political leanings whatsoever (Jeff Goldstein asks, “do such creatures exist?") or Mr. Colmes could have wanted the President to nominate someone whose personal political beliefs stand in direct contrast to the President’s own.

Like say, a Democrat.

You know this is a Supreme Court nominee we are talking about here, so one expects logic (not to mention sanity) to go right out the window. But this is just getting silly.