Presidential Appointments

[Spindrift]

I saw an article about how a lot of Obama's judicial appointments are being held up in committee, often by a single Senator. This is nothing new, both sides do it, but it does seem ridiculous that a single Senator can hold up the nomination of a judge that would easily pass the full Senate. This also goes for other administration appoinments as well.

These has happened to both Republican and Democratic presidents. The president should be able to appoint people as needed and not have to resort to recess appointments. If the Senate doesn't want someone then don't approve them. Don't hide behind an arcane Senate rule.

Since nothing is likely to change the Senate rules that allow this charade, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment. The amendment would state that all Presidential appointments must be voted on by the Senate within 180 days of receiving the nomination or the nominee is automatically confirmed. Further if no Senate vote has been taken within 45 days, the nominee can serve on an 'acting' basis until the Senate votes or the 180 day time limit expires. At which time the nominee is confirmed or denied.

I was thinking that perhaps the Supreme Court nominees should be exempt and maybe Cabinet Secretaries.

Would this work?

 

[WildCat]

I saw an article about how a lot of Obama's judicial appointments are being held up in committee, often by a single Senator. This is nothing new, both sides do it, but it does seem ridiculous that a single Senator can hold up the nomination of a judge that would easily pass the full Senate. This also goes for other administration appoinments as well.

These has happened to both Republican and Democratic presidents. The president should be able to appoint people as needed and not have to resort to recess appointments. If the Senate doesn't want someone then don't approve them. Don't hide behind an arcane Senate rule.

Since nothing is likely to change the Senate rules that allow this charade, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment. The amendment would state that all Presidential appointments must be voted on by the Senate within 180 days of receiving the nomination or the nominee is automatically confirmed. Further if no Senate vote has been taken within 45 days, the nominee can serve on an 'acting' basis until the Senate votes or the 180 day time limit expires. At which time the nominee is confirmed or denied.

I was thinking that perhaps the Supreme Court nominees should be exempt and maybe Cabinet Secretaries.

Would this work?

I like this idea... but why the exemptions?

 

[Spindrift]

I like this idea... but why the exemptions?

I don't think a Supreme Court justice, the highest court in the land, should take their seat by default.

Cabinet secretaries are in line for the presidency, they should be voted on.

Plus historically there have not been any cases of their appointments being permanently stranded in committee.

 

[uruk]

A good thing is that anyone can be president. It's also a bad thing that anyone can be president.

I believe what G. Washinton and the other founding fathers said to have believed about the presendency. "The office should seek the man and not the man seek the office"

I am very suspect of one actively seeking the presidency. You have to suspect thier motives.

 

[Lurker]

I think a very simple fix would be to remove the anonymity of the Hold. Right now, a Hold can be placed anonymously. I can't for the life of me see what purpose anonymity has in this case other than cowardly politics.

I also like the idea of appointments being defaulted in if no vote.

 

[Crossbow]

I think a very simple fix would be to remove the anonymity of the Hold. Right now, a Hold can be placed anonymously. I can't for the life of me see what purpose anonymity has in this case other than cowardly politics.

I also like the idea of appointments being defaulted in if no vote.

Seconded!

If some senator wants to put a hold on an appointee, then that senator should at least be required to state why he is putting a hold on that appointee.

 

[Spindrift]

I think a very simple fix would be to remove the anonymity of the Hold. Right now, a Hold can be placed anonymously. I can't for the life of me see what purpose anonymity has in this case other than cowardly politics.

I also like the idea of appointments being defaulted in if no vote.

Seconded!

If some senator wants to put a hold on an appointee, then that senator should at least be required to state why he is putting a hold on that appointee.

I agree, but I think it would be easier to get a constitutional amendment than for the Senate to change their rules.

 

[theprestige]

I saw an article about how a lot of Obama's judicial appointments are being held up in committee, often by a single Senator. This is nothing new, both sides do it, but it does seem ridiculous that a single Senator can hold up the nomination of a judge that would easily pass the full Senate. This also goes for other administration appoinments as well.

These has happened to both Republican and Democratic presidents. The president should be able to appoint people as needed and not have to resort to recess appointments. If the Senate doesn't want someone then don't approve them. Don't hide behind an arcane Senate rule.

Since nothing is likely to change the Senate rules that allow this charade, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment. The amendment would state that all Presidential appointments must be voted on by the Senate within 180 days of receiving the nomination or the nominee is automatically confirmed. Further if no Senate vote has been taken within 45 days, the nominee can serve on an 'acting' basis until the Senate votes or the 180 day time limit expires. At which time the nominee is confirmed or denied.

I was thinking that perhaps the Supreme Court nominees should be exempt and maybe Cabinet Secretaries.

Would this work?

It depends what you mean by "work".

The U.S. government is comprised of a system of checks and balances. Your solution "works" in the sense that it gives the Executive branch greater power to force the hand of the Legislative branch, against their will.

Strengthening the Presidency at the expense of the Legislature is all well and good when you agree with the President and are tired of Congress opposing his will...

... So well and good, in fact, that if you propose this amendment you should probably give serious consideration to an amendment that Barack Obama be Dictator-for-Life. Otherwise, in another two years (or six), when he's out of office, you'll be dearly wishing the Legislative branch had some constitutional power left to oppose the will of an Executive you don't agree with.

The only reason one Senator can hold up a nomination right now is because nobody, anywhere, can give him a good reason not to. Or if they can, they've decided they won't. It's not just one Senator: it's a whole faction the Executive must win over with diplomatic and political skill, if he wants the Legislature to dance to his tune.

If nothing else, that Senator represents hundreds of thousand--if not millions--of American citizens. Why shouldn't their representative hold up a Presidential appointment? Are their voices too small to be heard? Are their votes too insignificant to matter?

 

[Puppycow]

I believe what G. Washinton and the other founding fathers said to have believed about the presendency. "The office should seek the man and not the man seek the office"

I am very suspect of one actively seeking the presidency. You have to suspect thier motives.

Well, unless you are George Washington and you've just won a revolutionary war and are a universally admired national hero, the office won't come seeking you. You have to seek it, nowadays.

 

[Spindrift]

It depends what you mean by "work".

The U.S. government is comprised of a system of checks and balances. Your solution "works" in the sense that it gives the Executive branch greater power to force the hand of the Legislative branch, against their will.

Strengthening the Presidency at the expense of the Legislature is all well and good when you agree with the President and are tired of Congress opposing his will...

... So well and good, in fact, that if you propose this amendment you should probably give serious consideration to an amendment that Barack Obama be Dictator-for-Life. Otherwise, in another two years (or six), when he's out of office, you'll be dearly wishing the Legislative branch had some constitutional power left to oppose the will of an Executive you don't agree with.


The only reason one Senator can hold up a nomination right now is because nobody, anywhere, can give him a good reason not to. Or if they can, they've decided they won't. It's not just one Senator: it's a whole faction the Executive must win over with diplomatic and political skill, if he wants the Legislature to dance to his tune.

The Legislative branch does have the power to oppose the will of an Executive. They can actually take a vote and deny his nominee. That will not change. What would change is a single Senator will not be able to hold the process hostage.

There is only one reason Senators hold up a nomination and that is because they know the nominee will be confirmed. That is one Senator making a mockery of the democratic process.

And yes, I'd be happy with this regardless who is in office.

Will you be happy when a single Senator holds up the next Republican president's nominees?

If nothing else, that Senator represents hundreds of thousand--if not millions--of American citizens. Why shouldn't their representative hold up a Presidential appointment? Are their voices too small to be heard? Are their votes too insignificant to matter?

His voice should be heard on the floor of the Senate under a vote to confirm or not confirm. Not some anonymous chicken-**** hold. And if that Senator doesn't have enough votes go the way he wants, he loses. That's how voting works.

 

[DJW]

A single senator is allowed to hold the process hostage because the senate has created rules that give that power to its members.

 

[Lurker]

If nothing else, that Senator represents hundreds of thousand--if not millions--of American citizens. Why shouldn't their representative hold up a Presidential appointment? Are their voices too small to be heard? Are their votes too insignificant to matter?

Spindrift already said what I would have said but I wanted to add a question about the anonymity part.

What purpose is there in it being an anonymous hold? I thought the general consensus was for more transparency in government. I really am interested in hearing your thoughts on the rationale for the hold being anonymous.

 

[hgc]

...
Since nothing is likely to change the Senate rules that allow this charade, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment. ...

For constitutional amendment: 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress + 3/4 of states.

For Senate rules: majority of Senate voting for organizing resolution at beginning of each Congress, which contains the entire set of rules having been presented by the majority caucus.

I don't think the answer to problems with Senate rules a constitutional amendment. The Senate can fix that whenever they want.

 

[Spindrift]

For constitutional amendment: 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress + 3/4 of states.

For Senate rules: majority of Senate voting for organizing resolution at beginning of each Congress, which contains the entire set of rules having been presented by the majority caucus.

I don't think the answer to problems with Senate rules a constitutional amendment. The Senate can fix that whenever they want.

And it's been pretty apparent that they don't want to and even if they did, they could always re-institute it at any time.

There is another method of amendment where 2/3's of the states call a constitutional convention. A highly unlikely long shot I know, but right now, it's more likely to happen than the Senate changing there rules with respect to this.

 

[theprestige]

The Legislative branch does have the power to oppose the will of an Executive. They can actually take a vote and deny his nominee. That will not change. What would change is a single Senator will not be able to hold the process hostage.

There is only one reason Senators hold up a nomination and that is because they know the nominee will be confirmed. That is one Senator making a mockery of the democratic process.

And yes, I'd be happy with this regardless who is in office.

Will you be happy when a single Senator holds up the next Republican president's nominees?


His voice should be heard on the floor of the Senate under a vote to confirm or not confirm. Not some anonymous chicken-**** hold. And if that Senator doesn't have enough votes go the way he wants, he loses. That's how voting works.

Spindrift already said what I would have said but I wanted to add a question about the anonymity part.

What purpose is there in it being an anonymous hold? I thought the general consensus was for more transparency in government. I really am interested in hearing your thoughts on the rationale for the hold being anonymous.

A single senator is allowed to hold the process hostage because the senate has created rules that give that power to its members.

Thank you, DJW.

 

[Lurker]

What purpose is there in it being an anonymous hold? I thought the general consensus was for more transparency in government. I really am interested in hearing your thoughts on the rationale for the hold being anonymous.

A single senator is allowed to hold the process hostage because the senate has created rules that give that power to its members.

Thank you, DJW.

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious. As you can see in my question above, I did not ask how they did it, I asked the purpose in doing it. The rationale for it being anonymous.

 

[uruk]

Well, unless you are George Washington and you've just won a revolutionary war and are a universally admired national hero, the office won't come seeking you. You have to seek it, nowadays.

The office tried to seek out Gen. Colin Powel. He turned the office down. Might have made a good president, all things considered.

Men like Wahington (minus the slave owning and foppery) are few and far between.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It depends what you mean by "work".

The U.S. government is comprised of a system of checks and balances. Your solution "works" in the sense that it gives the Executive branch greater power to force the hand of the Legislative branch, against their will.

Strengthening the Presidency at the expense of the Legislature is all well and good when you agree with the President and are tired of Congress opposing his will...

... So well and good, in fact, that if you propose this amendment you should probably give serious consideration to an amendment that Barack Obama be Dictator-for-Life. Otherwise, in another two years (or six), when he's out of office, you'll be dearly wishing the Legislative branch had some constitutional power left to oppose the will of an Executive you don't agree with.

The only reason one Senator can hold up a nomination right now is because nobody, anywhere, can give him a good reason not to. Or if they can, they've decided they won't. It's not just one Senator: it's a whole faction the Executive must win over with diplomatic and political skill, if he wants the Legislature to dance to his tune.

If nothing else, that Senator represents hundreds of thousand--if not millions--of American citizens. Why shouldn't their representative hold up a Presidential appointment? Are their voices too small to be heard? Are their votes too insignificant to matter?

No, sorry. This goes well beyond checks and balances and actually hinders the President's ability to do his job. As of March, when Obama made 15 recess appointments,

• President Obama currently has a total of 217 nominees pending before the Senate. These nominees have been pending for an average of 101 days, including 34 nominees pending for more than 6 months.

• The 15 nominees President Obama intends to recess appoint have been pending for an average of 214 days or 7 months

Source.


And, of course, Mitch McConnell then came out and said that he was holding up additional appointments from getting out of his committee in retaliation for Obama using his Constitutional authority to make recess appointments. This is just pure obstructionism. Keeping the President from filling positions, so that his job is harder.

 

[TsarBomba]

The idea of an amendment to create a drop dead date for senate confirmation would give undue power to whatever party is in the minority of the Senate (assuming they support the current president's appointment). Under current Senate rules, you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. Thus, if the President wanted to appoint some odious cad who was opposed by 59 senators, all that would have to happen was a filibuster for the requisite time period, and said odious cad would be appointed whether the Senate likes it or not.

 

[Lurker]

The idea of an amendment to create a drop dead date for senate confirmation would give undue power to whatever party is in the minority of the Senate (assuming they support the current president's appointment). Under current Senate rules, you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. Thus, if the President wanted to appoint some odious cad who was opposed by 59 senators, all that would have to happen was a filibuster for the requisite time period, and said odious cad would be appointed whether the Senate likes it or not.

Good point as it relates to the filibuster. But what about the anonymous hold which is done by ONE senator? I am not for getting rid of the filibuster, but at least filibuster a candidate instead of the one senator anonymous hold.