In response to:

So, the Senate Should Probably Confirm High-Up EPA Officials, Huh?

packband Wrote: May 11, 2012 3:22 AM
Yes, that's exactly what we need. More ways for the minority party in the Senate to hold the Executive Branch hostage by refusing to confirm nominees.
Joseph64 Wrote: May 11, 2012 9:47 AM
That was the founders intent for the Senate in the first place, to be the place where both the will of the people (the House) and the Executive branch get their powers checked.
Hard Thought Wrote: May 11, 2012 8:55 AM
Yes, it is exactly what we need. That way they could be vetted.

We could determine if they have the good of the country in mind or are just more, mindless eco-nazi's.

The senior Republican senator from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, is on fire. A couple weeks back, his office unearthed a video of an EPA regional administrator outlining his "crucify them" policy toward polluters -- poignantly revealing how such higher-up government jobs tend to attract overzealous, damn-the-costs, power-tripping bureaucrats who fancy themselves Mother Earth's crusaders. The EPA official in question has since resigned, but from the kerfuffle, Sen. Inhofe is extracting a simple yet brilliant moral: perhaps Congress should be canvassing these characters before they're hired, no?

Republicans are floating legislation that would require Senate confirmation of the...