One of the arguments I see in favor of confirming Trump’s nominees is that the president-elect, having resoundingly defeated Kamala Harris, has a mandate from the American people.
Good post. I think an argument can be made that the Senate should reject presidential nominees to executive offices only for significant character or moral issues, for inability to perform the office, or for a well-grounded fear the appointee would be likely to take action the president could not constitutionally take. The Constitution vests the sole executive power in the president, so every executive official, high or low, is an agent of the president. and is discharging his duties or exercising his power, so rejecting an executive nominee for political purposes improperly curbs the power of the president. The same analysis would not of course apply to judicial nominees. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for the comment, Jim. I think the argument you suggest can, indeed, be made, and carries force. For better or for worse, however, the argument carries little sway these days -- in other words it's not consistent with recent practice.
Therefore, I think it's fair for Republican Senators who disagree strongly with a nominee's position on an issue central to the Cabinet position for which she has been selected to vote "no" for policy reasons.
I agree about the effect of past practice, but didn't want to include that in my comment since I wanted it to be precatory. Given long-continued practice, I also agree with your strongly disagree comment, though my guess is that the Republican no votes will be based in large part on the basis of unfitness for office, which I recognize as a legitimate ground for a no vote, not on policy, with the exception of Robert Kennedy. Even there, I think much of what Kennedy has proposed to do would be unconstitutional even if done by the president, which I do recognize as legitimate grounds for a no vote. Gabbert could be bounced on policy grounds, but she is manifestly unfit for the office given her complete lack of intelligence community experience. Trump must have felt the need to give her some position for her support and party switch, but he could have found a different office.
If the Senate (both parties) took its role seriously we could rely on it to vote up or down presidential nominees. There always been rejected nominees and likely always will be. What is new is rejection of perfectly qualified nominees over policy differences. For example the filibuster of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN under Bush was an absolute outrage. I generally believe a President should have his choice of advisors as well as ambassadors. Judges since they are for life deserve a bit more scrutiny but today no judge not rated the highest by the ABA would never be confirmed. As for Trump, he has made some excellent choices who should be confirmed 100-0 but won't be because you know it normalizes him. Others like Gaetz would properly be rejected as entirely unqualified.
What you do address is how theoretically the Senators of the opposition party should vote for the nominees I their advise and consent role. Is it in their best interest and the citizens of their state as well as best for the country and the functioning of Congress to blindly oppose the President for whatever reason they deem important even in the case of well qualified nominees. I would hope that for the Dessie of our functioning democracy there will be cases of meaningful bipartisan support for some highly qualified nominees , and not only when ibis clear that they are gong to be confirmed due their support by at least 50 Republicans. In that case, the Dems votes are just symbolic and actually throwaway whichever way they vote . In Trump’s first term it was clear that many times Dems chose an obstructionist tactic and had complete party spdisciple in opposing Trump, whether due to cramp ant TDS or other reasons.
Good post. I think an argument can be made that the Senate should reject presidential nominees to executive offices only for significant character or moral issues, for inability to perform the office, or for a well-grounded fear the appointee would be likely to take action the president could not constitutionally take. The Constitution vests the sole executive power in the president, so every executive official, high or low, is an agent of the president. and is discharging his duties or exercising his power, so rejecting an executive nominee for political purposes improperly curbs the power of the president. The same analysis would not of course apply to judicial nominees. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for the comment, Jim. I think the argument you suggest can, indeed, be made, and carries force. For better or for worse, however, the argument carries little sway these days -- in other words it's not consistent with recent practice.
Therefore, I think it's fair for Republican Senators who disagree strongly with a nominee's position on an issue central to the Cabinet position for which she has been selected to vote "no" for policy reasons.
I agree about the effect of past practice, but didn't want to include that in my comment since I wanted it to be precatory. Given long-continued practice, I also agree with your strongly disagree comment, though my guess is that the Republican no votes will be based in large part on the basis of unfitness for office, which I recognize as a legitimate ground for a no vote, not on policy, with the exception of Robert Kennedy. Even there, I think much of what Kennedy has proposed to do would be unconstitutional even if done by the president, which I do recognize as legitimate grounds for a no vote. Gabbert could be bounced on policy grounds, but she is manifestly unfit for the office given her complete lack of intelligence community experience. Trump must have felt the need to give her some position for her support and party switch, but he could have found a different office.
If the Senate (both parties) took its role seriously we could rely on it to vote up or down presidential nominees. There always been rejected nominees and likely always will be. What is new is rejection of perfectly qualified nominees over policy differences. For example the filibuster of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN under Bush was an absolute outrage. I generally believe a President should have his choice of advisors as well as ambassadors. Judges since they are for life deserve a bit more scrutiny but today no judge not rated the highest by the ABA would never be confirmed. As for Trump, he has made some excellent choices who should be confirmed 100-0 but won't be because you know it normalizes him. Others like Gaetz would properly be rejected as entirely unqualified.
What you do address is how theoretically the Senators of the opposition party should vote for the nominees I their advise and consent role. Is it in their best interest and the citizens of their state as well as best for the country and the functioning of Congress to blindly oppose the President for whatever reason they deem important even in the case of well qualified nominees. I would hope that for the Dessie of our functioning democracy there will be cases of meaningful bipartisan support for some highly qualified nominees , and not only when ibis clear that they are gong to be confirmed due their support by at least 50 Republicans. In that case, the Dems votes are just symbolic and actually throwaway whichever way they vote . In Trump’s first term it was clear that many times Dems chose an obstructionist tactic and had complete party spdisciple in opposing Trump, whether due to cramp ant TDS or other reasons.
Thanks for the comment. I share your hope.