General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's the difference, operationally, between an "acting" official and one that has been..
... approved by congress? What's to stop a president from just filling his administration with acting officials and leaving it at that?
tia
las
SeattleVet
(5,477 posts)Of course, the current administration ignores the parts of the law that it disagrees with, and there are a few that are well past their expiration dates.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)soothsayer
(38,601 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)And limits on how long an acting official can serve
OAITW r.2.0
(24,271 posts)Biden can introduce by letting the major news outlets do an in-depth Q and A. Don't give the McConnell Senate a chance to debase these people and use this as an opportunity to kneecap the Biden administration before it starts.
They (the McConnell Senate Republicans) won't care, Trump bi-passed the Senate confirmation process to get his unqualified picks w/o Republicans giving a shit installed, so what are they going to complain about now?
brooklynite
(94,300 posts)That should work well...
OAITW r.2.0
(24,271 posts)Will Biden put incompetent and conflicted nominees in his cabinet? I don't think so. I do think Republicans in the Senate will use the it as an opportunity to debase the nominees, regardless as to how well qualified they are.
Celerity
(43,059 posts)nominations, what else can we do? We HAVE to have a cabinet. I fail to see how naming acting cabinet members (only doing so due to outright Rethug stonewalling) is 'governing like Trump'.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)I say suppose to because more than one Trump acting appointees are getting close to a year on the job.
So at best there is no difference. At worse the Senate pushed back and Supreme Court rules they have to leave their post Biden would need to replace them with another acting appointee.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate. If a first or second nomination is rejected by the Senate or withdrawn, it activates additional 210-day periods from the date of the rejection, but this does not apply to a third or later nomination.
If an office remains vacant after 210 days after the rejection, withdrawal, or return of a second presidential appointment nomination, it remains vacant until a person is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In such instance, only the head of an executive agency may perform office functions until such appointment is made in the case of an office other than the office of head of an executive agency.
This period is modified around the time of a presidential transition (when a new president takes office), effectively extending the 210-day limit to 300 days.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Nice that it also applies "as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate" so Mitch would have to vote down the confirmation. He can't just not call a vote because if he doesn't call a vote then the appointee can remain there forever.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,488 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,488 posts)KY...........
Massacure
(7,512 posts)Person A resigns, so person B is assigned to act in their place. 209 days later, the POTUS nominates person C. Person C gets rejected by the Senate, and so 209 days after their rejection, the POTUS nominates person D. 209 days after person D gets rejected, the president nominates person E. If person E is rejected, the person B is forced to give up their temporary assignment? 607 days have passed plus however long the Senate spent considering each of the nominees?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vacancies_Reform_Act_of_1998
The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview - Congressional Research Service (.pdf)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44997.pdf