Senate fails to do its frickin' job, again

[theiacowtipper]

Nominations stacked up like cord wood. Individual senators placing holds on appointments and nominees for political reasons unrelated to the individuals nominated. The blame falls to both political parties, as they've both participated in this nonsense in the past, although it has progressively worsened.

At what point should the American people simply show every one of them the door? They were elected to conduct the business of government and they are refusing to do that very thing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-nominees-judges-appointments-216615

 

[TexMichFan]

Pasted the point where they should have been shown the door.

There should be a reasonable time limit for each nominee to be voted on.

 

[The Tradition]

Nominations stacked up like cord wood. Individual senators placing holds on appointments and nominees for political reasons unrelated to the individuals nominated. The blame falls to both political parties, as they've both participated in this nonsense in the past, although it has progressively worsened.

At what point should the American people simply show every one of them the door? They were elected to conduct the business of government and they are refusing to do that very thing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-nominees-judges-appointments-216615

Our system is supposed to make it difficult to get anything done.

 

[TexMichFan]

Our system is supposed to make it difficult to get anything done.

I think our system was supposed to make it difficult to pass a law not staff the positions that are open.

 

[theiacowtipper]

The constitution requires "advice and consent" of the Senate. It is an abuse of the system for one single Senator to have the power to block a nominee or appointment.

 

[The Tradition]

I think our system was supposed to make it difficult to pass a law not staff the positions that are open.

Then why bother with requiring the Senate to confirm anyone? It was designed to be a check on Presidential power. Without it, you'd see Presidents installing their brothers and sons to various cabinet positions and judge's benches.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Then why bother with requiring the Senate to confirm anyone? It was designed to be a check on Presidential power. Without it, you'd see Presidents installing their brothers and sons to various cabinet positions and judge's benches.

Reading is difficult for you, isn't it? Advice and consent from the Senate, not advice and consent from every single Senator. If a President is abusing his appointment power, the appointments should be blocked. That isn't what is happening here (both parties to blame) and what has happened in the past (both parties to blame). Consensus qualified nominees, some of them judges suggested by Republican senators, are being blocked simply because of politics. The ambassador to Mexico is being blocked because of Cuba. Important terrorism nominees being blocked because of the Iran deal.

In no sense is this a reasonable way for the Senate to do business. Being a deliberative body is a fine ideal, but when that becomes obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism, it needs to be changed.

 

[The Tradition]

Reading is difficult for you, isn't it? Advice and consent from the Senate, not advice and consent from every single Senator. If a President is abusing his appointment power, the appointments should be blocked. That isn't what is happening here (both parties to blame) and what has happened in the past (both parties to blame). Consensus qualified nominees, some of them judges suggested by Republican senators, are being blocked simply because of politics. The ambassador to Mexico is being blocked because of Cuba. Important terrorism nominees being blocked because of the Iran deal.

In no sense is this a reasonable way for the Senate to do business. Being a deliberative body is a fine ideal, but when that becomes obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism, it needs to be changed.

No, reading is not difficult for me. Not sure why you think an insult makes your stance more credible. You seem to want the Senate to simply be a rubber stamp for the President's wishes. I do not want that, and neither did the founders.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, reading is not difficult for me. Not sure why you think an insult makes your stance more credible. You seem to want the Senate to simply be a rubber stamp for the President's wishes. I do not want that, and neither did the founders.

How is asking them to vote yes or no a rubber stamp in your mind?

 

[TexMichFan]

Then why bother with requiring the Senate to confirm anyone? It was designed to be a check on Presidential power. Without it, you'd see Presidents installing their brothers and sons to various cabinet positions and judge's benches.

I agree with you on a lot of issues but this one where we will disagree.

Well there needs to be confirmation process and hearing there also needs to be a vote. The vote should be the check on Presidential power not the process.

The system we have worked well when government was small but it is a failure today. We should do away with Presidential appointments well Congress is on vacation in exchange for a vote on nominees in a reasonable time.

 

[theiacowtipper]

No, reading is not difficult for me. Not sure why you think an insult makes your stance more credible. You seem to want the Senate to simply be a rubber stamp for the President's wishes. I do not want that, and neither did the founders.

So look at the Constitution. Is there any mention of filibusters? Is there any mention of holds? Is there any mention of the ability of the majority leader to block a vote? Senate rules have made a mockery of the constitution. No one is arguing for any kind of rubber stamp. Allow a thorough debate, and then a vote. That was the intention of the founding fathers. That is what is should be now.

 

[The Tradition]

The Senate gets to decide what gets a vote. They have the power to set their own rules of procedure, committee, behavior, etc., etc. Demanding that anybody the president puts forth must have a vote changes the power structure considerably.

 

[The Tradition]

So look at the Constitution. Is there any mention of filibusters? Is there any mention of holds? Is there any mention of the ability of the majority leader to block a vote? Senate rules have made a mockery of the constitution. No one is arguing for any kind of rubber stamp. Allow a thorough debate, and then a vote. That was the intention of the founding fathers. That is what is should be now.

Senate rules haven't made a "mockery" of the constitution. Senate rules are the natural outgrowth of being a co-equal branch of government.

 

[The Tradition]

How is asking them to vote yes or no a rubber stamp in your mind?

Perhaps not a rubber stamp, but the president could certainly wear the senate down if they have to actually vote for every partisan clown the president nominates.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I think our system was supposed to make it difficult to pass a law not staff the positions that are open.

They have to interview a qualified <insert race here> before they can finalize the candidates.

 

[theiacowtipper]

The Senate gets to decide what gets a vote. They have the power to set their own rules of procedure, committee, behavior, etc., etc. Demanding that anybody the president puts forth must have a vote changes the power structure considerably.

Of course it does. That is the entire point. Until recently, the Senate could be trusted to carry out the people's business. In the last couple of decades, we have seen that the Senate cannot be trusted with this responsibility.

A filibuster on bills is more tolerable. However, I don't see any constitutional standard for the Senate to simply refuse to do its job. They aren't required to vote on bills, but they have a requirement to vote on nominees.

 

[The Tradition]

Of course it does. That is the entire point. Until recently, the Senate could be trusted to carry out the people's business. In the last couple of decades, we have seen that the Senate cannot be trusted with this responsibility.

A filibuster on bills is more tolerable. However, I don't see any constitutional standard for the Senate to simply refuse to do its job. They aren't required to vote on bills, but they have a requirement to vote on nominees.

Apparently they don't have such a requirement. Perhaps you should start an constitutional amendment drive.

 

[naturalmwa]

Perhaps not a rubber stamp, but the president could certainly wear the senate down if they have to actually vote for every partisan clown the president nominates.

How? Voting on these people is there job. If they can't handle the rigors of voting on people, then get another job. Your objection here seems quite worthy of insult.

 

[The Tradition]

How? Voting on these people is there job. If they can't handle the rigors of voting on people, then get another job. Your objection here seems quite worthy of insult.

No, the actual voting is a fairly marginal part of a senator's job. Everybody knows how everybody is going to vote anyway. Most of the heavy lifting is done in committees.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, the actual voting is a fairly marginal part of a senator's job. Everybody knows how everybody is going to vote anyway. Most of the heavy lifting is done in committees.

Was this intended to be on point? If you wonder why people toss out insults, its because of answers like this. What do you think they do in committees? They vote. Voting is the entire point of a representative. They are literally there to represent the votes of their constituents. Acting in a way to prevent a vote is antithetical to their purpose and tramples the rights of citizens. There ought to be a way to sue to force a vote.

 

[The Tradition]

Was this intended to be on point? If you wonder why people toss out insults, its because of answers like this. What do you think they do in committees? They vote. Voting is the entire point of a representative. They are literally there to represent the votes of their constituents. Acting in a way to prevent a vote is antithetical to their purpose and tramples the rights of citizens. There ought to be a way to sue to force a vote.

The vote is the culmination of all the work done in committee. Before they vote, they have hearings, they have meetings, they debate language and add-ons and revisions. Once all that work is done, they have a vote, or the matter is tabled and never voted on. That's how it works.

 

[theiacowtipper]

The vote is the culmination of all the work done in committee. Before they vote, they have hearings, they have meetings, they debate language and add-ons and revisions. Once all that work is done, they have a vote, or the matter is tabled and never voted on. That's how it works.

So would you admit that the nominees who have been passed out of committee deserve a vote?

 

[The Tradition]

So would you admit that the nominees who have been passed out of committee deserve a vote?

No... everything that comes out of committee isn't guaranteed a floor vote. Why would it be?

 

[Vroom_C14]

Of course it does. That is the entire point. Until recently, the Senate could be trusted to carry out the people's business. In the last couple of decades, we have seen that the Senate cannot be trusted with this responsibility.

A filibuster on bills is more tolerable. However, I don't see any constitutional standard for the Senate to simply refuse to do its job. They aren't required to vote on bills, but they have a requirement to vote on nominees.

I would replace "Senate" with "Government".

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

No... everything that comes out of committee isn't guaranteed a floor vote. Why would it be?

Because the Constitution says the Senate is required to provide advice and consent with respect to certain nominees; the Senate is under no Constitutional requirement to pass ordinary legislation.

 

[The Tradition]

Because the Constitution says the Senate is required to provide advice and consent with respect to certain nominees; the Senate is under no Constitutional requirement to pass ordinary legislation.

Do you understand what "advice and consent" means?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the senate has to vote in order to deny consent.

 

[aflachawk]

The constitution requires "advice and consent" of the Senate. It is an abuse of the system for one single Senator to have the power to block a nominee or appointment.

It's a much bigger abuse for the POTUS to grab so much power to himself

 

[LifelongHawk]

It's a much bigger abuse for the POTUS to grab so much power to himself

Or herself.

 

[theiacowtipper]

It's a much bigger abuse for the POTUS to grab so much power to himself

In the area of appointments, how has the president abused his power. It is his job to make appointments.

 

[The Tradition]

In the area of appointments, how has the president abused his power. It is his job to make appointments.

Because he doesn't get to do it on his own. It requires the consent of the senate.

 

[lucas80]

Rachel Maddow has been waving the banner for Adam Szubin. He's been sitting on hold to be an undersecretary in the Treasury Department responsible for chasing ISIS finances down, and attempting to strip them of their monetary ability to harm us.
Republicans have been blocking a vote on his confirmation for over 200 days even though Szubin was in the Bush administration. Baffling that Republicans will beat the drum all day long about President Obama not keeping us safe, but they can't be troubled to vote on a key person who will take the fight to ISIS.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Because he doesn't get to do it on his own. It requires the consent of the senate.

OK, so how has he abused the process? By making them acting appointees? That's been done for over a century. The true abuse is being perpetrated by individual Senators playing politics with appointees.