That sounds like the Dems and their shills that are saying the majority were too dumb to know who to vote for in the Presidential election and only the elites should have a say in electing leaders.

This one will come back to bite us.

TA-OP said:

---

That pesky Constitution…

---

now do executive orders that usurp the roel of Congress. which are, at best, assumed to be issued "with the implied will of Congress".

Yet almost never are.

FbgTxAg said:

---

This entire concept needs to be sunset.

Should the Senate need to confirm Supreme Court Justices? Absolutely. The Judicial Branch is the 3rd branch - I've got no problem with requiring some consensus when nominating/filling seats on the Supreme Court, and to a lesser degree for lower federal courts.

But Presidential cabinet members are exclusively the purview of the Executive Branch. A President should get the people he/she wants. Period. Just like the President gets no say in picking the Speaker of the House or Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate.

These "confirmation hearings" are complete garbage. I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican President - it's worthless Kabuki Theater. Not allowing a President to pick who the hell they want for their Cabinet is ridiculous.

I mean look at the clowns Biden got "approved." If that collection of Derelicts and Ne'er-Do-Wells can be "approved," then the whole process is a sham and a waste of time.

---

Keep the Constitution the way it is or make an amendment.

C@LAg said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

That pesky Constitution…

---

now do executive orders that usurp the roel of Congress. which are, at best, assumed to be issued "with the implied will of Congress".

Yet almost never are.

---

Many EO's are because Congress doesn't do their job. Chevron was a step in the right direction.

BMX Bandit said:

---

We've already shifted enormously towards president having more power than than other two branches. I'm ok with keeping this small check and balance in place.

---

exactly. It seems like the recent trend is to just rubber stamp whatever mentally deficient activist the president nominates.

I would argue that the Senate needs to do a better job of screening nominees for ability to do the job. Did you see the people confirmed for Biden, no wonder our country is in the crapper.

I'm a big supporter of the constitution as designed and don't like attempts to "reinterpret" it to today's standards. I don't know how anyone can be a rabid supporter of originalist intent and then in the same breath say "but we need an exception in this area or that one." It wasn't created as a cafeteria approach.

I'm totally fine with the checks and balances. They have served us well over time. Pick competent candidates that are not extremists and don't have serious skeletons in the closet, and you'll get them approved. Venture off to the far side with a candidate, and there's a good chance they won't get approved.

I care much more about the R's working with Trump to pass legislation that advances a conservative agenda (lower taxes, lower spending, lower regulation, lower government intrusion, etc) than who gets confirmed to run an agency. The next administration if it's Dem can reverse executive actions just like Trump is going to do to Biden's initiatives, but legislation is typically longer lasting and harder to overturn.

I don't have a problem with "advice and consent." What I have a problem with is interpreting "consent" to mean days or weeks of hearings that turn into a political zoo. Most appointments are consented with either a voice vote or at least a roll call vote that no one even knows about. The ones that have hearings aren't based on the constitutional clause but on politics, and political power grabs aren't protected by the constitution.

Advice and consent means the Senate votes up or down and/or they send over a proposed list of their own potential nominees.

techno-ag said:

---

It's very simple. If Republican Senators passed Biden's picks, they need to do the same for Trump or face the consequences.

---

Like Murkowski and Collins who voted for Merrick Garland as AG.

Can't stand either of those two. Collins at least voted to confirm Kavanaugh.

Democrat nominees: Rubber Stamp with support from the usual RINOs in a quick process.

Republican nominees: Grueling spit show drama with lies and innuendo and days of hearings and protests with defections from the usual RINOs and approval by the narrowest of margins.

There are more and more conservatives on this board that seem to want the strong man versus reversing the inflated power of the presidency. We should be looking at ways to use this presidency to neuter the big government, not hand all the power to one guy.

The Banned said:

---

There are more and more conservatives on this board that seem to want the strong man versus reversing the inflated power of the presidency. We should be looking at ways to use this presidency to neuter the big government, not hand all the power to one guy. to crush the other side.

---

All actual neutering requires amendments. Good luck.

ts5641 said:

---

I would agree that a POTUS duly elected by the people should be able to hire who he wants.

---

I wholeheartedly agree that Donald Trump should be able to pick absolutely any and everyone he wants and his FULL agenda carried out. The majority of Americans voted for this and they should absolutely have it.

Tom Fox said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There are more and more conservatives on this board that seem to want the strong man versus reversing the inflated power of the presidency. We should be looking at ways to use this presidency to neuter the big government, not hand all the power to one guy. to crush the other side.

---

All actual neutering requires amendments. Good luck.

---

Or governors that refuse to listen to Washington. Or Trump gutting the bureaus. I think we can reduce government without giving trump 100% of the power

The Banned said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There are more and more conservatives on this board that seem to want the strong man versus reversing the inflated power of the presidency. We should be looking at ways to use this presidency to neuter the big government, not hand all the power to one guy. to crush the other side.

---

All actual neutering requires amendments. Good luck.

---

Or governors that refuse to listen to Washington. Or Trump gutting the bureaus. I think we can reduce government without giving trump 100% of the power

---

How much time have you spent in the executive branch? The DOJ?

I spent my first eight years after undergrad working within the DOJ.

Without going scorched earth and being unified in doing so, you will never stop the 4th branch of government.

Obama made 32 recess appointments.

Also, there's nothing stopping Trump from making any of these appointments "Acting Attorney General" or "Acting Secretary of Defense." Matt Whitaker comes to mind in the previous Trump term.

This, to my point, all this confirmation theater is bullshlt. If Trump really wants these folks - he's gonna get em.

C@LAg said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

That pesky Constitution…

---

now do executive orders that usurp the roel of Congress. which are, at best, assumed to be issued "with the implied will of Congress".

Yet almost never are.

---

Okay. Not in the Constitution.

Checks and balances are appropriate. In actuality the vast majority of a Presidents' appointments are confirmed-any President. It is also the way Gubernatorial appointments are handled in every State as far as I know. I do love how Trump is rolling out the appointments so rapidly, the Left can't gin up their outrage machine at everyone. If a nominee has true, disqualifying issues that's one thing, and they should come out.

And Obama gave us NLRB vs Canning (2014)

Quote:

---

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER v. NOEL CANNING, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 26, 2014]
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join, concurring in the judgment.

Except where the Constitution or a valid federal law provides otherwise, all "Officers of the United States" must be appointed by the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." U. S. Const., Art. II, 2, cl. 2. That general rule is subject to an exception: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Id., 2, cl. 3. This case requires us to decide whether the Recess Appointments Clause authorized three appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 without the Senate's consent.

To prevent the President's recess-appointment power from nullifying the Senate's role in the appointment process, the Constitution cabins that power in two significant ways. First, it may be exercised only in "the Recess of the Senate," that is, the intermission between two formal legislative sessions. Second, it may be used to fill only those vacancies that "happen during the Recess," that is, offices that become vacant during that intermission. Both conditions are clear from the Constitution's text and structure, and both were well understood at the founding. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the appointments here at issue are invalid because they did not meet either condition.

Today's Court agrees that the appointments were in-valid, but for the far narrower reason that they were made during a 3-day break in the Senate's session. On its way to that result, the majority sweeps away the key textual limitations on the recess-appointment power. It holds, first, that the President can make appointments without the Senate's participation even during short breaks in the middle of the Senate's session, and second, that those appointments can fill offices that became vacant long before the break in which they were filled. The majority justifies those atextual results on an adverse-possession theory of executive authority: Presidents have long claimed the powers in question, and the Senate has not disputed those claims with sufficient vigor, so the Court should not "upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached." Ante, at 9.

The Court's decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates. To reach that result, the majority casts aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text in deference to late-arising historical practices that are ambiguous at best. The majority's insistence on deferring to the Executive's untenably broad interpretation of the power is in clear conflict with our precedent and forebodes a diminution of this Court's role in controversies involving the separation of powers and the structure of government. I concur in the judgment only.

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

That pesky Constitution…

---

now do executive orders that usurp the roel of Congress. which are, at best, assumed to be issued "with the implied will of Congress".

Yet almost never are.

---

Many EO's are because Congress doesn't do their job. Chevron was a step in the right direction.

---

Congress doing nothing is a valid option. That doesn't mean they are not doing their job. This Obama "pen and phone" garbage bypasses the checks and balances you claim to support.

What the left means is "Congress is not doing what the left wants, thus we need to use an EO or agency order to do it anyway".

Quote:

---

Obama made 32 recess appointments

---

Yes, but it has to be a true "recess appointment". See TRM post.

Quote:

---

.

Also, there's nothing stopping Trump from making any of these appointments "Acting Attorney General" or "Acting Secretary of Defense." Matt Whitaker comes to mind in the previous Trump term.

---

He can't appoint just anyone as "acting". The vacancies reform act sets forth who can fill those roles.

We are a government of f checks and balances. Hell I wish the senate would greater scrutinize candidates more than less

FbgTxAg said:

---

Obama made 32 recess appointments.

Also, there's nothing stopping Trump from making any of these appointments "Acting Attorney General" or "Acting Secretary of Defense." Matt Whitaker comes to mind in the previous Trump term.

This, to my point, all this confirmation theater is bullshlt. If Trump really wants these folks - he's gonna get em.

---

Trump never made a recess appointment.

RONA Ag said:

---

We are a government of f checks and balances. Hell I wish the senate would greater scrutinize candidates more than less

---

If the Senate members were still appointed by the State Legislatures I would agree wholeheartedly. But since they are now simply "Ultra-Congressmen," and the Senate itself with simple majority requirements for almost everything (reconciliation, appointments) I don't care to give that body any more power than they already wield, and I'm all for circumventing them whenever possible.

That's the only way people might wake up to the fact that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

RONA Ag said:

---

We are a government of f checks and balances. Hell I wish the senate would greater scrutinize candidates more than less

---

Wish casting. The dems will vote along party lines as always.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Checks and balances. The Leg establishes the agencies and defines scope. The whole point of the system was to have a robust hiring process to ensure only the most qualified were appointed. We are long gone from that.

---

You're ignoring the points OP made against that. Why doesn't the president have to approve the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leadet? And if Biden could select the idiots he did it's obviously just a sham.

TexAgs91 said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Checks and balances. The Leg establishes the agencies and defines scope. The whole point of the system was to have a robust hiring process to ensure only the most qualified were appointed. We are long gone from that.

---

You're ignoring the points OP made against that. Why doesn't the president have to approve the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leadet?

---

Because it's not in the constitution.

The constitution isn't a cafeteria approach... I'll take some of this but none of that.

My favorite parts are 1A, 2A, and separation of powers, but I have to take the rest along with it. Or change it, and there's a process for that, in the constitution.

TA-OP said:

---

That pesky Constitution…

---

Libs need to be cool with appealing the 17th or dont bull**** us with citing the constitution while trump is in charge. You'd be all too happy with a popular vote till Trump slammed dunked on calm-a-la