Presidential Appointments

[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.

Their purpose in allowing it is to strenghten the advice and consent powers granted them by the constiution. IOW--it's not the senator but rather the senate that you should be all worked up about. They protect their own, for when the shoe is on the other foot.

Oh, and that's Admiral Obvious to you.

 

[ZirconBlue]

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. I'm not a big fan of the filibuster in general, and even less so when it's used to block appointment, but what if the deadline were just to bring the appointment to the floor of the Senate? Then a filibuster couldn't be used to run out the clock, but it couldn't be held up in committee, etc.

 

[Spindrift]

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, add that to amendment that it can't be filibustered.

 

[theprestige]

No, sorry. This goes well beyond checks and balances and actually hinders the President's ability to do his job.

What do you think "checks and balances" means?

Rather than curbing the President's power by spelling out every single aspect of his job in meticulous detail, leaving nothing to chance or misinterpretation, the Constitution instead assigns the President certain privileges and responsibilities, with a lot of leeway as to how he exercises them. The Constitution curbs the President's power by means of a separate institution*, co-equal in authority to the President, but with different privileges and responsibilities. And one of their privileges--one of their responsibilities--is to hinder the President's ability to do his job.

The American system of government wasn't designed to help politicians get things done. Politicians don't really need any help in that area, and often enough do what they shouldn't. Instead, the American system was designed to prevent politicians from doing too much. Over 230 years later, I have to say I wouldn't mind seeing the Federal government get back to its roots. In the mean time, I'm all in favor of the filibuster, the anonymous hold, and, yes, the recess appointment. Because one of the President's privileges and responsibilities is to get things done in spite of Congress.


--
*ETA: Well, two separate, co-equal institutions, really

 

[Beerina]

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

In turn because the Congress is constitutionally charged with setting their own rules.


When the Republicans were toying with the "nuclear option" to bypass the 60 vote supermajority requirement to bring debate to an end (or whatever it is) and move on to the vote, I recommended against it because, someday, it would bite them in the ass.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.


For the same reason, I would not recommend either side screw with this -- if it's a problem, deal with it the old fashioned way: at the next election.

 

[Lurker]

Their purpose in allowing it is to strenghten the advice and consent powers granted them by the constiution. IOW--it's not the senator but rather the senate that you should be all worked up about. They protect their own, for when the shoe is on the other foot.

OK, that explains why there is a hold. Why does it need to be anonymous? Fear of assasination?

Oh, and that's Admiral Obvious to you.

I accidentally deleted the email with this promotion announcement. My apologies, sir!

 

[DJW]

OK, that explains why there is a hold. Why does it need to be anonymous? Fear of assasination?)

Literal and figurative cover, because they're taking one for the team (which is the whole of the senate).

I accidentally deleted the email with this promotion announcement. My apologies, sir!

It was obviously spam.

 

[Spindrift]

Literal and figurative cover, because they're taking one for the team (which is the whole of the senate).

Taking one for the team? The same team that would probably confirm the nominee? Please explain how it is anything other than a single Senator with an ax to grind bolloxing up the works.

 

[DJW]

Taking one for the team? The same team that would probably confirm the nominee? Please explain how is anything other than a single Senator with an ax to grind bolloxing up the works.

I should have added that "taking one for the team" was my opinion. Perhaps a single senator want's to gum up the process, but we've seen this now on several occassions. Both sides are content to use it for whatever reasons they have. Maybe a bill is being affected. Maybe somebody's brother's sister's valet wants the job.

The truth remains that the senate wrote the rules regardless of what reasons may be in play at this moment.

 

[Spindrift]

I should have added that "taking one for the team" was my opinion. Perhaps a single senator want's to gum up the process, but we've seen this now on several occassions. Both sides are content to use it for whatever reasons they have. Maybe a bill is being affected. Maybe somebody's brother's sister's valet wants the job.

The truth remains that the senate wrote the rules regardless of what reasons may be in play at this moment.

Maybe? There is no maybe. Both sides have done this and it's ridiculous. Advise and consent means to consult and approve (or deny). It does not mean hold up without advising as to why and never approving or denying.

 

[DJW]

Now, it may be construed that you are asking the senate to work at the president's pace. So, this could be as simple as: We/I will approve/disapprove when we're/I'm good and ready. I don't know, but as I've stated before; they do so because they gave themselves the procedures to do so.

 

[ZirconBlue]

What do you think "checks and balances" means?

Separation of powers and safeguards against abuse of powers. Not deliberate sabotage of another branch of government.

The Constitution curbs the President's power by means of a separate institution*, co-equal in authority to the President, but with different privileges and responsibilities. And one of their privileges--one of their responsibilities--is to hinder the President's ability to do his job.

I disagree entirely. Their job is not to sabotage the President, anymore than it its the President's job to disrupt Congress. "Advise and consent" is what the Senate is supposed to be doing. Blocking the nomination from ever even reaching the Senate floor, or even being discussed in Committee, is them refusing to perform that duty.

The American system of government wasn't designed to help politicians get things done. Politicians don't really need any help in that area, and often enough do what they shouldn't. Instead, the American system was designed to prevent politicians from doing too much.

We're not talking about implementing new laws, here. We're talking about filling job vacancies. That not only hinders the President, but everyone else trying to work in those departments with insufficient staff.

To my mind, these appointments -- at least the non-permanent ones -- ought to be pretty much a rubber stamp approval, only to be blocked for very serious issues of corruption or criminal behavior. Life-time appointments warrant more scrutiny, but 6 months is plenty of time for investigation and debate. At that point it needs to come down to an up-or-down vote.

Over 230 years later, I have to say I wouldn't mind seeing the Federal government get back to its roots. In the mean time, I'm all in favor of the filibuster, the anonymous hold, and, yes, the recess appointment. Because one of the President's privileges and responsibilities is to get things done in spite of Congress.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Especially now that the Senate is filibustering an unprecedented number of bills. Bills should pass or fail based on the votes, not bureaucratic maneuvering. If it's going to take 60 votes to pass a bill, then the rule should just be changed to say that.

 

[Spindrift]

Now, it may be construed that you are asking the senate to work at the president's pace. So, this could be as simple as: We/I will approve/disapprove when we're/I'm good and ready. I don't know, but as I've stated before; they do so because they gave themselves the procedures to do so.

No, it would be construed that I'm asking the Senate to do it's work. This has nothing to do with Senate needing more time. These holds are not for the purpose of further investigation but simply to stonewall, indefinitely. The fact that they abuse the procedure they gave themselves is the exact reason why the constitution needs to be changed to stop the abuse.

 

[DJW]

No, it would be construed that I'm asking the Senate to do it's work. This has nothing to do with Senate needing more time. These holds are not for the purpose of further investigation but simply to stonewall, indefinitely. The fact that they abuse the procedure they gave themselves is the exact reason why the constitution needs to be changed to stop the abuse.

I understand that you don't like what's going on, but you're only guessing at the reasons. Send a letter to a few senators asking what the hold is all about. Tell that that you believe it is an abuse of the system. They might actually tell you what's going on, but I'm far too cynical to believe that. Now, the bit about changing the constitution. Do you really want to limit the Senate's power to make its own rules?

 

[Lurker]

I understand that you don't like what's going on, but you're only guessing at the reasons. Send a letter to a few senators asking what the hold is all about. Tell that that you believe it is an abuse of the system. They might actually tell you what's going on, but I'm far too cynical to believe that. Now, the bit about changing the constitution. Do you really want to limit the Senate's power to make its own rules?

If it is an anonymous hold there is no way to know which senator to send my letter to. If I send it to a senator that does not have the hold on, how would the senator know what the rationale for the hold is since they too would not know who put the hold on and thus could not talk to the "hold" senator.

 

[DJW]

If it is an anonymous hold there is no way to know which senator to send my letter to. If I send it to a senator that does not have the hold on, how would the senator know what the rationale for the hold is since they too would not know who put the hold on and thus could not talk to the "hold" senator.

You'd need to object to the anonymity portion and go on from there. If no one knows, then that's tantamount to a blackball. I can't see that holding up to much scrutiny.