McConnell and the Confirmation of Cabinet Officers -- 9 Denied in Combined US History.

[TheBlackAdder]

.

Let's use the words from Heritage.org against them.

Historically, the Senate has confirmed most presidential nominations, but “in rare instances” a vote to confirm a major appointment has failed on the Senate floor.


At this writing, the Senate has rejected only nine of a president’s Cabinet nominations. Four were made by embattled Whig-turned-Independent John Tyler in 1843 and 1844, including choices for secretary of war and treasury secretary.

In 1834, Democrat Andrew Jackson became the first president to lose a major confirmation fight when the Senate rejected his recess appointment of Roger Taney as treasury secretary by a vote of 28-18.

In 1868, the Senate rejected Democrat Andrew Johnson’s nomination of Henry Stanbery as attorney general, 29-11. Stanbery sought to regain the post after resigning to defend Johnson in his impeachment trial.

In the past 100 years, the Senate has rejected three nominations, all from Republican presidents:

Rejected Nominees

1925

Calvin Coolidge’s choice of Charles Warren for attorney general, by votes of 41-39 and 46-39.

1959

Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Lewis Strauss for commerce secretary, by a vote of 49-46.

1989

George H.W. Bush’s choice of former Sen. John Tower, R-Texas, for defense secretary, by a vote of 53-47.

Another 13 Cabinet nominations were withdrawn from Senate consideration, 10 of them because of political dustups under the past three presidents. In the first such actions since 1868, five of Bill Clinton’s nominees withdrew or were withdrawn in the 1990s. Two of George W. Bush’s nominees withdrew, in 2001 and 2004, followed by three of Barack Obama’s, all in 2009.
More on This Issue
Political Process

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/heritage-explains/the-confirmation-process-presidential-appointees

1) Biden fields 10 candidates.
2) McConnell nixes them all. More than the total denied in the combined history of the USA.
3) Biden takes this to the Supreme Court that the Senate is no longer fulfilling its function as a legitimate confirmation process--contrary to the Constitution.

.

[PoliticAverse]

1. "Biden takes this to the Supreme Court" - and loses. n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

3. And if he does nothing, he lost without a fight--not highlighting the dysfunction to the country.

.

If you look at the majority of the recent withdrawls, they were Democrats doing them.

But, nine denials in US History and 10 denials in 3 Months is quite different.

.

[unblock]

2. The Supreme Court will easily uphold the senate's right to play hardball

That's likely a 9-0 decision.

The constitution certainly doesn't require the senate to say yes.

Such obstruction should be massively politically damaging to republicans, but it's not a legal or constitutional problem.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. The senate advise & consent clause was to provide accountability and prevent tyrrany.

.

McConnell's blanket denial of nominees would not fall under those guidelines, if shown as abusive.

This is where the SCOTUS needs to Affirm or Deny this behavior.

.

[unblock]

5. I agree it's abusing a power, but what could the Supreme Court do anyway?

It can't coerce a yes. It can't say the president can give three choices and you must pick one. Any restriction along those lines would take a power clearly assigned to the senate and render it nearly useless, or hand it over to a different branch of government.

Senators who behave like that are supposed to get voted out of office. What needs fixing is the media and the level of civic awareness in the country.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. The framers were concerned Congress would try to appoint their people-affecting Executive Branch.

.

This is why the Senate was only given the power of advise & consent.

It turns out that Mitch McConnell telegraphed his bad intent to interfere with the Executive Branch and derogate the President's control over the Executive Branch--thereby encroaching on the separation of powers. The framers were worried about the full congress interfering with Presidential control and pack it with their supporters, and just gave it to the senate. And here it is the Senate that is trying to stuff the Executive Branch. Mitch only wants to confirm Republican people.

.

[unblock]

7. I agree. But there's a reasonable enough solution in practice.

Recess appointments or transfers from other senate-approved positions.

One way or another Biden will have the cabinet he wants.

In fact he may have more liberty to get exactly who he wants if mcturtle forces him to bypass confirmation.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. McConnell never places the Senate in Recess. There's always one to open & close a minute later.

[unblock]

14. I believe a recess can be engineered

The house can insist they disagree with the senate as to when to adjourn to, and the president can resolve this by setting the date of the adjournment far enough in the fire to permit recess appointments.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. It looks like the last recess appointment for Pres. Obama was in 2012.

.

SUMMARY -

Beginning in the 110th Congress, the Senate periodically used pro forma sessions to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days. There appears to have been an expectation that this scheduling would block the President from making recess appointments, based on an argument that an absence of the Senate of three days or less would not constitute a “recess” long enough to permit the use of this authority.

In January 2012, President Obama made four recess appointments during a three-day recess between pro forma sessions of the Senate on January 3 and January 6, 2012, a period that was generally considered too short to permit recess appointments. The recess during which the President made the appointments was part of a period of Senate absence that, absent the pro forma sessions, would have constituted an intrasession adjournment of 10 days or longer.


PAGE 10 -

From the 110th Congress onward, it became commonplace for the Senate and House to use certain scheduling practices as a means of precluding recess appointments by the President.The practices do this by preventing the occurrence of a Senate recess of sufficient length for the President to be able to use his recess appointment authority. In a June 26, 2014, opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the President may use the recess appointment power essentially only during a Senate recess of 10 days or longer.27 Furthermore, the Court concluded that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, “the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”28This implies that the Senate would also determine if and when it will adjourn for a recess of 10 days or longer and thus allow for the possibility of recess appointments. In this way, the Court validated the use of congressional scheduling as a mechanism for preventing the President from making recess appointments.

One set of scheduling practices that has arisen was implemented by the Senate alone; no unusual action or inaction by the House was necessary. A second, related set of practices, which developed in the 112thCongress, arose from the lack of a concurrent resolution of adjournment, which can result from a lack of consent by either the House or the Senate. This section describes these developments and the impact they have had on the incidence of recess

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=804476

.

[onenote]

12. There would have to be a recess, and there won't be one. And the other confirmed officials

that he can pick as an acting cabinet secretary are going to be Trump's appointees.

There is next to zero chance that McConnell can hold together his entire coalition to block every Biden nominee. If I'm wrong, I'll donate $100 to DU. Romney and Collins, to name the two most obvious choices, are Republicans through and through, but they're also institutionalists and they're not going to block every nominee Biden puts forward.

[unblock]

15. Of course the real question is how much of a "compromise" would the nominees need to be

In order to get a vote or two from republicans?

[onenote]

8. 4. Biden loses 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Or, more to the point, Biden, who has legal counsel far superior to some of the armchair lawyers here, never brings this frivolous suit.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Biden and the Dems

If they don’t have the majority will have to figure out a way to grab some Republicans to do an end run around McConnell to force approval of a cabinet. This is something that I couldn’t see Republicans just getting away with but I thought that about Garland too- but what argument is McConnell going to make on camera about not confirming any nominees for any cabinet positions? How many Republicans are going to lockstep for that? This would have to be too much for Collins, Murkowski, and (probably) Romney, right? And for the record, Biden won’t nominate anybody extraordinarily left-wing for any positions.

[TheBlackAdder]

13. Yep. Biden just has to keep fielding them and force McConnell to strike them all down--on record.

.

None of this withdraw a nomination thing. Run it to the end, where the Senate forces the vote.

Each and every one of them. McConnell will reaffirm his role as Senate Maj. Leader asshole in history.

.

[SoonerPride]

11. He just appoints acting secretaries and says fuck you to the senate

Period

[onenote]

16. Trump has had to withdraw four cabinet level nominations

He also has nominated and withdrawn several dozen sub-cabinet nominees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_nominees_who_have_withdrawn

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. Did he appoint any of them in "acting" positions though?

I remember George W. Bush withdrew John Bolton from confirmation for UN Ambassador but appointed him anyway via a temporary Recess Appointment (that actually ended when it was supposed to now that I think about- not very noteworthy at the time but seems noteworthy now).

[Takket]

19. i wouldn't expect much of a fight from mcconnel on this........

there isn't really anything to gain and plenty to lose politically by doing this. plus the gop caucus isn't going to want to dick around with it either so you're likely to see a few rethugs cross over and vote to accept. will only take 2 of them.