Should the Senate go into a voluntary recess to allow Trump to appoint cabinet officials without due process?

[Shaul]

Recess appointments were intended to allow a president to appoint a cabinet member if the senate happened to not be in session. At the time this rule was set the senate was not in session very much since the horse was the only means of transportation. It was a convenience, not a way to get around the rules as Trump intends. What do you think Trump is afraid of? Do you think he's worried that his picks won't make the cut?

You don't seem terribly excited that the senate will vet Trump's picks.

One thing that I think Trump's picks could backfire is that few of them seem to know anting about the job they will have. And how long wll it take thm to learn what the heck they are supposed to do, and then start making decisions? Months. Lacking experience might prevent them from doing too much damage as they would be like babes lost in the woods. I would worry about experienced people who knew exactly how to cause damae to the institutions they will lead. Trump's picks seem to just be people he saw on TV that day.

The real reason leftists want to wait is to delay Trump's appointments for as long as they can. Which is sad and pathetic.

 

[Revoltingest]

The real reason leftists want to wait is to delay Trump's appointments for as long as they can. Which is sad and pathetic.

Instead, I say it's to get better quality appointments.
Not fools who think that astrology is medicine, &
that vaccines are dangerous.

 

[F1fan]

The real reason leftists

Why do you incorrectly write “leftist” when you are referring to democrats? Does it make you feel encouraged in your flawed political beliefs? Everyone knows you’re incorrect. So who is being fooled?

want to wait is to delay Trump's appointments for as long as they can.

I’ve seen no reports of this. What I see is 1. Absolute disgust in his terrible picks, and 2. That Trump is asking the Senate to recess as if he knows the picks will be exposed as unqualified and unacceptable, and rejected. The norm is for the Senate to do its Constitutional duty and assess the picks and approve only qualified candidates.

Which is sad and pathetic.

Irony.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As most all of us have heard Trump wants the Senate to go into a voluntary recess so he can appoint cabinet members wihtout any of the "advise and consent" that is the standard process. The process is that senators ask questions to determine the qualifications of the nominee. Without this process appointments can be made without concerns being questioned. No president elect has ever asked for this. And at least four of the nominees are highly problematic, and even unfit from a national security risk. The Senate has not issued any formal response, and some members of congress support the recess while others point out the risk and corruption at the heart of Trump's request.

Should the Seanate roll over and sub mit to Trump's request, and not vet any of the nominees? Or do you think the Senate vetting these people is core duty and necessary as representatives of citizens?

You know, when I think about it, I have to ask, "why is this even a question?"

What is it that makes us think that, this time, for this incoming administration, the Senate (with or without the help of the House) should voluntarily give up it's Constitutional Duty of advise and consent?

There can only be one possible reason -- the Nominator-in-Chief has a requirement to suppress relevant information about those he nominates to the some of the most important positions in the land.

What about this sounds like honesty to Americans? What about this doesn't make Americans ask, "what's he trying to hide?"

And most importantly (not to mention perplexingly), what about this is making Republicans wish to voluntarily give up their right and their responsibility to protect the nation, without even asking the relevant questions?

Is it any wonder that many people around the world fearing that America, just 2 years before becoming a 250 year-old democracy (the longest in the world), is preparing to give it up?

 

[Shaul]

Why do you incorrectly write “leftist” when you are referring to democrats? Does it make you feel encouraged in your flawed political beliefs? Everyone knows you’re incorrect. So who is being fooled?

I wrote leftists because I meant leftists. If I had wanted to refer to Democrats (capitalized, sir), I would have written that. Before labeling someone's political beliefs as "flawed" (whatever that means) you might at least actually understand them and not misrepresent them.

I’ve seen no reports of this. What I see is 1. Absolute disgust in his terrible picks, and 2. That Trump is asking the Senate to recess as if he knows the picks will be exposed as unqualified and unacceptable, and rejected. The norm is for the Senate to do its Constitutional duty and assess the picks and approve only qualified candidates.

You can't "know" President-elect Trump is seeking recess appointments for the reasons you stated. All Presidents want their appointees to start as soon as possible. That is a valid reason. There is nothing about recess appointments that prevent the Senate from exercising their Constitutional given power of advice and consent. The Constitution provides for recess appointments and recognizes their usefulness. If you disagree, change the Constitution.

 

[Shaul]

Instead, I say it's to get better quality appointments.
Not fools who think that astrology is medicine, &
that vaccines are dangerous.

When you are elected President you can choose the appointees you prefer. The members of the Senate will provide their advice and consent about President Trump's appointees. I am sure the President and the Senators will give all the due consideration your assessments of them deserve.

 

[F1fan]

I wrote leftists because I meant leftists. If I had wanted to refer to Democrats (capitalized, sir), I would have written that. Before labeling someone's political beliefs as "flawed" (whatever that means) you might at least actually understand them and not misrepresent them.

Your political views are flawed, as my posts (among others') reveal.

You can't "know" President-elect Trump is seeking recess appointments for the reasons you stated.

He's openly asked for them to recess which is abnormal and disrespecful to the Senate. It is their Constitutional duty to vet these picks, regrdless of the political party. No president has asked for a deliberate surrender of the Senate's duty. And as we know Trump has a history of cheating and fraud, so it's not stretch of imagination to assume his intent is to avoid scrutiny to abnormal picks, many of whom have serious character and qualification flaws.

All Presidents want their appointees to start as soon as possible. That is a valid reason.

They still have to follow the Constitution. Trump is no exception.

There is nothing about recess appointments that prevent the Senate from exercising their Constitutional given power of advice and consent.

Yes it does, as Trump will appoint his picks without hearings.

The Constitution provides for recess appointments and recognizes their usefulness. If you disagree, change the Constitution.

It is an obsolete policy that was created at a time when travel was limited to horse and carriages. The Senate would be out of session for months at that time, and it was thought to avoid delays the recess appointment would be allowed. It wasn't meant to bypass the vetting of nominees. Let's note that recess appointees do not get paid. They are meant as a temporary measure in an emergency.

 

[Revoltingest]

When you are elected President you can choose the appointees you prefer.

Tis best to no prefer dangerous loonies.

The members of the Senate will provide their advice and consent about President Trump's appointees.

Not sure they will for this term.

I am sure the President and the Senators will give all the due consideration your assessments of them deserve.

I am sure most Republicans will obey Trump.