Comments on: Czardom

By: danimal

danimal — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:32:43 +0000

Make the bill effective in January, 2013 or 2017 and I’ll support it. It would be good to test the constitutionality of the de facto confirmation/non-confirmation process. This is simply a stunt.

By: K

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:41:28 +0000

Presumably this bit of bill language was drafted by some unelected, anonymous, & unaccountable leg counsel, who plainly wasn’t vetted for competence.

By: James Cotter

James Cotter — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:31:03 +0000

My lord, do they know how many task forces that exist within federal law enforcement that fall within that definition? The joint terrorist task force being the only one that I can think of quickly that is codified, but beyond that, hundreds. In Los Angeles alone: auto theft task force, container theft task force, soft top container smuggling task force,a variety of HIDTA ad hoc task forces, assorted violent crime task forces. I can not even begin to tell you how many.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:59:10 +0000

A sidelight on that problem with confirmations -- courtesy of Carl Tobias at Findlaw. The 4th Circuit now has 1/3 of its seats unfilled, 5 of 15. One of those seats has remined unfilled since Clinton was President. (One of Bush's nominees for the slot, fortunately blocked by the Democrats, was Claude 'Return It even if you didn't buy it' Allen.)

By: Warren Terra

Warren Terra — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:35:33 +0000

It’s worth mentioning that the Republicans in the Senate have now blocked the confirmations of an appalling proportion of appointees for some 9 months. So the “pay only the confirmed” rule is suspect.

By: Chuchundra

Chuchundra — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:44:18 +0000

We used to call the person in charge of our coffee club at work the “Coffee Czar”. I assure that this was really a shit job and it had no monarchical, dictatorial or other inappropriate powers.