John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, diverged from that point of view. He strongly defended the White House circumvention of the legislative branch in this instance. Although Baucus had not even scheduled a hearing for Berwick, Kerry nonetheless blamed GOP "stalling’’ on his nomination -- an apparent reference to the GOP warnings of a GOP roasting and expected "holds,'' which allow single senators to put a freeze on nominees.That is to say, a very controversial nominee never saw the inside of a hearing room because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Panel Head Max Baucus decided that they didn't want the nominee to be questioned by Republicans, who might bring up the nominee's view that:
“Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern. Republicans screamed that these federal programs were in trouble, then tried to deny the Administration the capable guy the President had chosen to oversee them,’’ Kerry said.
"The President did the right thing making this a recess appointment. He wasn’t going to let the Republicans thrive in a chaos of their own making. Instead, he put seniors, kids, and the disabled ahead of Republican gamesmanship, and he put a terrific public servant in place,’’ he said.
“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”And maybe it is, but should this not be what we might call "a teachable moment"? Is this not the time to have someone with some opinions help us think through what is obviously a political, rather than a medical question?
The idea that the US Senate, the "world's greatest deliberative body", is not willing to talk about this particular view on economic redistribution is appalling to me.
Worse, it is obvious to the common man on the number 38 bus that this is politically motivated. The Democrats down in Washington, and apparently Ms Arons-Barron, don't want a public display of the views of someone they are putting into an important position in our Government.
Once again transparency falls before the forces of political partisanship.
And if the Administration and the Democratic controlled Congress are doing this in plain sight, what are they doing behind our backs?
As for Senator Kerry and his comments, I say "Shame, shame, shame".
If I were Law Professor Glenn Reynolds, I would be writing, "THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, there would be a dramatic lack of transparency. And they were right.
Regards — Cliff