When Barack Obama became president in 2009, all of his nominations for cabinet positions were approved by the Senate but one. That one was Tom Daschle who had been nominated to be President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sen. Daschle withdrew his nomination after a flap about conflict of interest.
In general I believe that incoming presidents deserve a certain amount of deference in their picks for cabinet officers on the grounds that they should be allowed to pick their own team. I said that about President Obama’s nominations and I believe the same thing about President-Elect Trump’s. “Deference” does not mean blind acquiescence. It does mean benefit of the doubt.
The members of the Senate should do their due diligence and question the nominees. Expect all of Trump’s nominees for cabinet positions to be confirmed. Democrats would be prudent to pick their battles.
His appointments to judgeships, particularly Supreme Court justices and filling the vacancies in the 9th Circuit, are another story.
Wonder if they will try to delay the SCOTUS appointment for 10 months for revenge? Agree on the cabinet. I expect them to use the confirmation hearings to grandstand like their GOP counterparts, but they should confirm.
Steve
The first cabinet appointment ever rejected was Roger Taney’s who had participated in what was the equivalent of the Midnight massacre, in which Taney had been given a recess appointment in order to withdraw federal funds from the Bank of the United States after the previous Secretary of Treasury refused Jackson’s order to perform what he thought was an impeachable offense. I think that is the type of grounds that are appropriate for rejection, high crimes and misdemeanors and the means and methods of implementing policy, not the policy disputes themselves. Otherwise, the hearings should probably simply be an early taste of oversight hearings in which the Senate expresses its priorities and seeks feedback from the nominee.
They’re politicians. What else would you expect them to do?
Plus the requisite grandstanding, posturing, virtue-signalling, and dog whistles.
I think there are limits to how much doubt we should give the benefit to.
For instance, Tillerson has never held a job outside of Exxon — he has no demonstrated qualifications for Secretary of State. He might turn out to be surprisingly good, but we have no reason to think so.
Perry famously wanted to close down the department he’s nominated for. We need to understand if he understands what the Department of Energy does, and what functions he wants to reassign and what functions he wants to leave undone.
Trump’s picks are, in general, a lot less traditionally qualified than Obama’s. I’m not willing to say they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I am willing to say they should be given the benefit of a fair hearing, and the opportunity to show that they are qualified.
I’m not entirely in disagreement with that. Unknown quantities deserve more scrutiny than known ones.
As I commented here earlier, the inexperience of a nominee for State without background knowledge in magic diplomatic words would be concerning. Now that I’ve got the State Department hearing in the background, some of my worse fears have been confirmed. Marco Rubio is lambasting some quiet, disciplined old dude for refusing to declare Putin a war criminal.
“grandstanding, posturing, virtue-signalling, and dog whistles”
I don’t want to get into a bickering match over what is or is not a war crime but IMO people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If ordering activities that result in death, injury, and the destruction of property without the authorization of Congress or the UNSC is a war crime, every president in my lifetime is guilty.
Trump’s nominees have been slow-walking the background checks. Congress has apparently decided it no longer matters if the nominees, or the President Elect for that matter, have conflicts of interest.
Dave Schuler: If ordering activities that result in death, injury, and the destruction of property without the authorization of Congress or the UNSC is a war crime, every president in my lifetime is guilty.
War crimes are defined by international law, for example, targeting civilians indiscriminately is a war crime. Justifiable self-defense is not a war crime, whether or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council.