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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am sure most Republicans will obey Trump.

Too bad. Senators aren't elected to "obey" the President. That makes the President, effectively, a king. Or if you prefer, a dictator, since I know Americans are allergic to kings.

That, as I understand it, was NOT what the Framers intended.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

It seems likely that the Senate will give him that, and if so, the dissolution of Constitution begins. There will be no checks and balances, no advise and consent - just the will of a single man.

I can't emphasize enough that:

• [1] Trump wants the unchecked power of a dictator.
• [2] The Republican Party seems willing to let him have that, and SCOTUS has been complicit.
• [3] There is no other apparent force to oppose Trump - not the military unless it mutinies, not the police, not the Department of Justice, not future free and fair elections once the Republicans make those a thing of the past, and not foreign governments or defense pacts unless NATO wants to go to war with Trump.
• [4] America has never been in this state before, meaning that the past is no longer a predictor of the future. Things that have never occurred and were once considered impossible or unthinkable have already occurred and will continue to occur. I mentioned the end of free elections. To think that they will continue to occur into the future presumes that the Republicans will allow that at a time when they don't need to and have a motive not to.

So, all of this talk about what the Constitution says or what the founders intended is irrelevant if Trump and the Republicans want it to be.

Digression: This is not the only area where the past no longer predicts the future, and where people whose decisions are based in how it has always been will be surprised and disappointed. The other is climate and climate change. The smartest people already recognize that their region is becoming uninhabitable and that eventually, real estate in those areas will blow down or burn down uninsured. Sell now and let the deniers absorb the loss of equity.

The people who understand these two ideas the soonest will be best poised to adapt to the changes coming. The options regarding political changes are similar - move, prepare to weather the coming storm, or do neither based in one's memories of how things used to be and see how that works out.

 

[Wirey]

It seems likely that the Senate will give him that, and if so, the dissolution of Constitution begins. There will be no checks and balances, no advise and consent - just the will of a single man.

I can't emphasize enough that:

• [1] Trump wants the unchecked power of a dictator.
• [2] The Republican Party seems willing to let him have that, and SCOTUS has been complicit.
• [3] There is no other apparent force to oppose Trump - not the military unless it mutinies, not the police, not the Department of Justice, not future elections once the Republicans make those a thing of the past, and not foreign governments or defense pacts unless NATO wants to go to war with Trump.
• [4] America has never been in this state before, meaning that the past is no longer a predictor of the future. Things that have never occurred and were once considered impossible or unthinkable have already occurred and will continue to occur. I mentioned the end of free elections. To think that they will continue to occur into the future presumes that the Republicans will allow that at a time when they don't need to and have a motive not to.

So, all of this talk about what the Constitution says or what the founders intended is irrelevant if Trump and the Republicans want it to be.

Digression: This is not the only area where the past no longer predicts the future, and where people whose decisions are based in how it has always been will be surprised and disappointed. The other is climate and climate change. The smartest people already recognize that their region is becoming uninhabitable and that eventually, real estate in those areas will blow down or burn down uninsured. Sell now and let the deniers absorb the loss of equity.

The people who understand these two ideas the soonest will be best poised to adapt to the changes coming. The options regarding political changes are similar - move, prepare to weather the coming storm, or do neither based in one's memories of how things used to be and see how that works out.

Empires generally last about 250 years, and the US is there. Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom. You guys are in for an entertaining four years, and I hope you don't drag the rest of us along for the ride.

 

[F1fan]

It seems likely that the Senate will give him that, and if so, the dissolution of Constitution begins. There will be no checks and balances, no advise and consent - just the will of a single man.

I can't emphasize enough that:

• [1] Trump wants the unchecked power of a dictator.
• [2] The Republican Party seems willing to let him have that, and SCOTUS has been complicit.
• [3] There is no other apparent force to oppose Trump - not the military unless it mutinies, not the police, not the Department of Justice, not future elections once the Republicans make those a thing of the past, and not foreign governments or defense pacts unless NATO wants to go to war with Trump.
• [4] America has never been in this state before, meaning that the past is no longer a predictor of the future. Things that have never occurred and were once considered impossible or unthinkable have already occurred and will continue to occur. I mentioned the end of free elections. To think that they will continue to occur into the future presumes that the Republicans will allow that at a time when they don't need to and have a motive not to.

So, all of this talk about what the Constitution says or what the founders intended is irrelevant if Trump and the Republicans want it to be.

Digression: This is not the only area where the past no longer predicts the future, and where people whose decisions are based in how it has always been will be surprised and disappointed. The other is climate and climate change. The smartest people already recognize that their region is becoming uninhabitable and that eventually, real estate in those areas will blow down or burn down uninsured. Sell now and let the deniers absorb the loss of equity.

The people who understand these two ideas the soonest will be best poised to adapt to the changes coming. The options regarding political changes are similar - move, prepare to weather the coming storm, or do neither based in one's memories of how things used to be and see how that works out.

I did hear reported that Mitch McConnell wants the Senate to vet the nominees, but he is 82 and on his way out. Does he have any influence at this point?

At this point I think it's best that Trump gets away with his inexperienced and criminal administration, and let the damage happen sooner rather than strung out over years. The analogy is that a reckless driver is driving through a parking lot and plowing into 4-5 cars and destroying them and no others, or sideswiping dozens and dozens of cars, and while not doing total damage keeps damaging more and more, and the damage not seen as catastrophic.

Let's note that if MAGAs fire most of the government the time it will take to hire new workers will unlikely be possible in four years. They wouldn't even have the HR staff to do it. And the new hires will have to be MAGA and willing to move. The administration will either have a small and ineffective government or have to rely on established staff who are dedicated to America. The dysfunction will be inherent regardless of what they want. To destroy the government they would have to have a functional government. Imagine the backlash if 10 million SS recipients don't get chacks.

Beavis and Butthead (Vikek and Musk) have published an editorial about what they intend to do with massive government cuts, and one example was the Corporation of public Broadcasting,which has an annual budget of over 500 million. If that funding gets slashed, along with NpR, it will be a massive blow to reputable news reporting. Will the public protest? If they do would the criminal administration listen? Doubtful. Then to eliminate the dept or education quickly would cause massive problems, especially in poor states, which tend to be republican. And then the roundup of those who "poison the blood of Americans" in the aggressive manner that is being promised will be terrible optics to many citizens and the world. Giving Trump and his band of extremists carte blanche could allow them to go too far too fast, and then with pubklic outrage perhaps some republicans will try to find a spine.

I think allowing Trump to do danage that can be reversed should be a defensive plan for democrats and the few republicans who have integrity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom.

Agreed. In my opinion, the problem begins with the liberals allowing the oligarchs to dismantle the Fairness Doctrine and never having reinstated it since when the Democrats were in power. This led to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and indoctrination and subjugation of susceptible minds, which appears to be over half of voters these days. That's not going away even after the world has forgotten Trump and MAGA.

You guys are in for an entertaining four years, and I hope you don't drag the rest of us along for the ride.

I agree with you that the immediate future of America will be fascinating, though entertaining wouldn't have been my word.

Also, I'm your basket now - part of the rest of the world wondering how changes in American will affect his life. We left America for good fifteen years ago based in the Bush years. We decided to unhitch our wagon then from that unstable-appearing star.

The pattern was apparent then - the American electorate invites Republicans in who terrify them, and they elect a Democrat, who then stabilizes their world somewhat. Then, Americans fail to recognize the difference and improvement, notice something in their lives that they don't like which is usually related to a stagnant standard of living due to their own choices, and they bring back the Republicans for another horror show.

And the Republicans come back worse with each iteration: Nixon -> (Carter) -> Reagan/Bush I -> (Clinton) -> Bush II -> (Obama) -> Trump -> (Biden) -> Trump unchained. It's the same old same old, but I think that this pattern will come to an end now. In my opinion, America has seen it's last moderate or liberal, Constitution-supporting president. The Republicans have captured the government with the help of the hapless MAGA voters, and as I explained, I don't see them giving it back or having it taken back from them.

At this point I think it's best that Trump gets away with his inexperienced and criminal administration, and let the damage happen sooner rather than strung out over years. The analogy is that a reckless driver is driving through a parking lot and plowing into 4-5 cars and destroying them and no others, or sideswiping dozens and dozens of cars, and while not doing total damage keeps damaging more and more, and the damage not seen as catastrophic.

It seems that you see this as a finite and limited downtime for America, and you're saying let him do his damage early presumably to begin the repair phase sooner. I hope that I'm wrong and you're right. My problem, as I've noted, is that I don't see any cavalry on the horizon and have no more expectation that there could be one than if we were on a Klingon spaceship too far from enemy craft to be rescued.

This Trump/Republican/MAGA juggernaut appears to me like an asteroid heading for America at a time when there exists no method to destroy or divert it, with people hoping or thinking that something will rescue them because this has never happened to them before.

Regarding Trump being inexperienced, I disagree. This administration will hit the ground running. Trump will remain in a vengeful, demented stupor, but not his minions, who don't care about Trump or his humiliation except to stay on his good side now that they've acquired power, which only requires keeping him in the dark.

In my opinion, there will be fewer to no regretted appointments like Comey, Sessions, Kelley, or Milley. The MAGA villains, who have already been culled from his experience since 2017, know exactly what they want - Project 2025 is just the stuff they felt safe putting in writing - how to get it, and what to say and not say to Trump.

Like I said, this is an area where I'd rather be wrong than right, but I've got to go where the evidence directs me rather than how I hope things will turn out. The asteroid model seems apt to me. If so, my best hope is that the math is wrong, or more literally, my political calculus.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too bad. Senators aren't elected to "obey" the President. That makes the President, effectively, a king. Or if you prefer, a dictator, since I know Americans are allergic to kings.

That, as I understand it, was NOT what the Framers intended.

As Trump appeared to intend,
it'll be an imperial presidency.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As Trump appeared to intend,
it'll be an imperial presidency.

Well, blimey! Matt Gaetz has just withdrawn his candidacy for AG!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, blimey! Matt Gaetz has just withdrawn his candidacy for AG!

Does that mean he's unemployed now?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does that mean he's unemployed now?

Yep! He resigned his House seat. I don't believe there's any way to rescind that resignation.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't think anyone should roll over but I also think that Trump should wait until the House and Senate are both Republican to announce who he would like to be appointed.

 

[Kathryn]

Does that mean he's unemployed now?

I believe it does!

 

[Wandering Monk]

Does that mean he's unemployed now?

Rumor is DeSantis will fill Senator Marco Rubio's seat with him.