The Math Does Not Favor Avoiding Senate Scrutiny of Trump's Bizarre Cabinet Picks
Several Republican senators have said they are not inclined to abdicate their "advice and consent" role in presidential appointments.

"Are you shittin' me?" Rep. Mike Simpson (R–Idaho) asked when informed that Donald Trump planned to nominate Matt Gaetz—a former Florida congressman with scant legal experience who is known mainly for antagonizing fellow Republicans and vigorously defending the former and future president—as attorney general. Other Trump picks, including Fox News host Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense and anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of health and human services, have provoked a similar response.
Even in a Republican-controlled Senate, questions about the qualifications of Trump's proposed cabinet members might pose problems during their confirmation hearings. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says the president "shall nominate" all "officers of the United States" and "shall appoint" them "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." With 53 GOP senators and ties decided by the vice president, opposition by just four Republicans would be enough to block a nomination, and several of them already have indicated they do not plan to rubber-stamp Trump's choices. But Trump is pushing an alternative that would avoid the need to obtain the Senate's approval.
"Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments," Trump wrote in an X post on Sunday, "without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner." He was referring to Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, which says, "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."
Sen. John Thune (R–S.D.), who was elected majority leader of the incoming Senate on Wednesday, seems open to this option. "We must act quickly and decisively to get the president's nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments," he said in an X post on Sunday. "We cannot let [outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people."
Can Gaetz et al. take office without Senate scrutiny? The short answer is yes, although it would hinge on approval by the Senate majority required to call a recess, which looks doubtful.
The Supreme Court has approved the approach that Trump favors by resolving two ambiguities in the Recess Appointments Clause. First, it is not clear from the constitutional text whether the "vacancies" that the president is filling have to happen "during the recess of Senate." Second, it is not clear what counts as "the recess of the Senate."
In the 2014 case NLRB v. Canning, which involved the purported recess appointments of three National Labor Relations Board members by President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court addressed both of those questions. Regarding "the scope of the words 'vacancies that may happen,'" the Court noted that the phrase could "refer only to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess" or also to "vacancies that arise prior to a recess but continue to exist during the recess." All of the justices agreed that the clause "applies to both kinds of vacancy."
Regarding "the scope of the words 'recess of the Senate,'" the Court noted that the phrase could "refer only to an inter-session recess (i.e., a break between formal sessions of Congress)." Alternatively, it could "include an intra-session recess, such as a summer recess in the midst of a session." The Court held that the phrase "applies to both kinds of recess," but with a caveat.
"When the appointments before us took place, the Senate was in the midst of a 3-day recess," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion. "Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue."
Relying on historical practice, the Court held that "a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short." Although "Congress has taken short breaks for almost 200 years, and there have been many thousands of recess appointments in that time," Breyer wrote, "we have not found a single example of a recess appointment made during an intra-session recess that was shorter than 10 days."
Within those constraints, then, the Senate could forgo its "advice and consent" role in presidential appointments by calling a recess, in which case Trump's nominees could serve until the end of the next Senate session in December 2026. But recesses require majority approval, which raises the question of whether 51 Republican senators are willing to let controversial nominees take office without confirmation.
Trump clearly cannot count on Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska), who thinks Gaetz is "not a serious candidate" and has emphasized the importance of the Senate's role. "There is a process; it's not discretionary," Murkowski said on Wednesday. "It's in the Constitution. It says, 'This is the role of the Senate.' So I feel pretty strongly as a member of the Senate that we have our job to do just as the president has his authorities. I will not accept that the United States Senate should just be an extension of the White House. We are our own separate but equal institution."
Nor can Trump rely on Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine), who said she was "shocked" by the Gaetz pick. "If the president proceeds with that nominee," she said, "I think it shows the importance of having the Senate advice and consent process." She added that "I'm sure that there will be an extensive background check by the FBI and public hearings and a lot of questions asked."
Sen. Joni Ernst (R–Iowa) likewise does not sound willing to let Gaetz slip in during a recess, saying, "He's got an uphill climb." Although "we always allow the President to have the benefit of the doubt," Sen. Mike Rounds (R–S.D.) said, "we still have to do our role in terms of due diligence."
Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) said recess appointments should be used "judiciously," expressing concern about "blanket recess appointments." On Thursday, despite his earlier openness to recess appointments, Thune said he prefers "the regular process to get these nominees through," adding his "intention" is to "get these folks going and get voting."
Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) also cast doubt on the viability of the shortcut Trump is demanding. "We have a process around here for considering presidential nominees," Cornyn told reporters on Thursday. "That's a constitutional responsibility of the Senate, and I intend to play my part as a member of the Judiciary Committee in doing that vetting and advice and consent." He added that "I don't think we should be circumventing the Senate's responsibilities" and that "it's premature to be talking about recess appointments."
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.), whose ouster Gaetz spearheaded, seems confident that his nemesis will never take office as attorney general. "Look, Gaetz won't get confirmed," he said on Wednesday. "Everybody knows that." More ominously for Gaetz, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) agreed with McCarthy's prediction, saying, "I think he's pretty right, actually."
Cramer expressed doubts about whether trying to get Gaetz confirmed would be worth the effort. "I have concerns that he can't get across the finish line, and we're going to spend a lot of political capital," he told reporters Thursday. "A lot of people will spend a lot of political capital on something that, even if they got [it] done, you'd have to wonder if it was worth it."
Cramer's remarks suggests that he, like Murkowski, Collins, Ernst, Rounds, Cornyn, and maybe Thune, assumes that Gaetz (and presumably other top-level nominees) will have to go through the usual process. For now, at least, the math does not favor Trump's proposed end run.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Abolish carrying the water for statists.
6pm Thursday: Abolish the 3 letter agencies.
8am Friday: But... our beloved 3 letter agencies, what will become of them if these hacks destroy them?!!
They refuse to leave the cave even though they are aware the projections on the wall are not real.
Elizabeth MacDonald
@LizMacDonaldFOX
As the media and Democrats attack Trump’s nominees—RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz etc—let’s take a look at how unqualified Biden’s nominees are for their jobs -
Xavier Becerra, HHS - not a doctor, he’s a lawyer, ex-attorney general of California
Jared Bernstein, Chair of Council of Economic Advisors - not an economist, Bachelor’s degree in music, masters in sociology
Pete Buttigieg, Transportation Secretary - no transportation background, Mayor of Indiana, “pothole Pete”
Mayorkas, DHS Secretary - no security background, lawyer, Asst U.S. attorney, Obama transition team
Jennifer Granholm, Energy Secy - no energy background, Michigan Governor
Gina Raimondo, Commerce Secretary - No trade background, Gov of Rhode Island
Deb Haaland, Interior Secy - New Mexico Congressman
And just for kicks…Bill Nye, the environmentalist “Science Guy” — no background in environmentalism or science, he’s a mechanical engineer and comedy writer
Don’t forget the luggage stealing tranny.
Yeah, I linked that one last night. This whole “inexperienced" thing is a laugh riot, coming from Reason of all places. I would expect it at CNN, the WaPo and The Economist, but at Reason? Really? The magazine that built its reputation almost entirely on writing about food trucks and weed and is the flagship magazine generally linked to a party that runs blue guys and dudes with boots on their head is pulling the “gravitas” card?
They just had the slew of abolish X articles 48 hours ago. They apparently didn't actually mean it.
failed exercise in prove it to the readers!
Ketanji Brown Jackson - not even a biologist.
js;dr I'll check in later for the comments.
You need the comments? I've mastered the art of skimming the article by reading the headline.
>>anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
would have been your darling if a true primary had been run.
Not sure about that. They've gone pretty hard for the establishment in recent years and RFK is too anti-establishment for them.
If the Senate has the votes to approve a recess, then the Senate has the votes to approve a nominee. So the talk of ‘recess appointments’ to get around a Republican Senate is rather silly.
this is correct excepting the reasons it is not.
They’re not the same thing, and that’s why Trump is proposing it.
Most Republican senators want to fast track most of the nominees, and at least some would not mind a process that avoids the Democrats getting to do hearings.
It could be (in principle) that they’d vote down Gaetz in a standalone decision, but would tolerate him as part of a package deal to get the whole administration approved at once with no hearings.
From the article it looks like right now the deal doesn’t have the votes, but I think it’s the deal Trump wants and he’s going to keep the pressure up.
It could be (in principle) that they’d vote down Gaetz in a standalone decision, but would tolerate him as part of a package deal to get the whole administration approved at once with no hearings.
Oh geez. That is so slimy. Just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower...
Still leagues above Democrats though.
Not really. They all suck.
Deep state gon' deep state. If you or any other Trump supporters think they're not going down with a fight, you're sorely mistaken.
The Senate is 'Deep State'? I thought it was the entrenched bureaucracy.
This just confirms what I have long thought about the right-wing description of 'Deep State' - it is just a catch-all term to describe anyone who doesn't like Trump.
I love when you lead with pretend ignorance.
That's just what I came to say.
No, the Senate confirms the people who run the deep state.
One time when I was visiting a federal building as part of my work, the top office had just changed hands. I asked the person who was showing me around if that would make a difference. She stopped walking and laughed. Other people milling about saw her laughing, asked what it was about, and then joined in. They got a great chuckle out of that.
There’s no “deep state.” It’s just a way conspiracy theorists paint bureaucratic inertia as a sinister conspiracy theory. There’s nothing sinister about a bunch of useless union tools covering their own asses and trying to stay employed until they get their juicy pension.
No, it's not a sinister conspiracy theory, it's a perfectly reasonable term to label something that is run by unelected bureaucrats and operates the vast federal, security and administrative state leviathan which has been institutionally captured by people who have no loyalty to the American people, but the furthering of the institutions themselves. It's a cheap parlor trick to try to paint people who merely point it out as some kind of 'conspiracy theorists' because they recognize it and call it out. It's the 'agreeing to disagree-- but let's not upset the bureaucracy by coloring outside the margins' philosophy.
In the first impeachment Vindman and others literally testified they were worried because the president disregarded the beliefs of the State Dept.
It's a sinister name for something that has a name: bureaucratic inertia.
It’s not inertia when they use it to stuff their pockets and those of the corporations they will be sitting on the board of when they retire. It’s also not inertia when they do hits on their political enemies. It’s also not inertia when they are working for various foreign government's interests instead of the US.
The work in their own interest like anyone else. So of course there's a revolving door between corporations and the folks who regulate them. The other two look like a conspiratorial road I'm not going to travel down.
That's the deep state, Sarcasmic. You just described it. Think of the traditional libertarian view of what every government devolves into. That's what has to go.
Does this mean you were contracted by government?
Why are you completely unaware of The Resistance you openly supported? Why are you ignorant to the political issues like Lerner at IRS or Washington at FEMA? Why only Republicans get charged with contempt of Congress. The information from FOIA about political actors at the DoJ? Even changing emails at the DoJ.
It is all incompetence. Consistently one way. Also ignore the 90% contribution rate to one party. The revolving door between corporation and the federal Oversight boards. All just fake. Sarc has spoken.
What kind worthless government contract was he working under?
Maybe I was delivering Cuban sandwiches. Wouldn't that make you ejaculate in your khakis.
Ideas™ !
The Senate confirms the people who are the top-level administrators of the executive departments. They are not the entrenched bureaucracy. They are not the 'Deep State' either according to your own definition, unless you want to say that EVERY one who is not directly elected by the people is the 'Deep State'. So I guess that would include Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. once they get their cabinet posts too?
The way the term 'Deep State' is commonly used, it is a non-falsifiable rationalization for Trump's failures. Instead of saying that Trump was incompetent in a certain way, just say 'the Deep State thwarted him' and that's that. Can't prove it either way, because no one can point to any specific person in any specific position in the 'Deep State' which did the thwarting.
Jeff, here you go. Just today the Federalist named a member of the Deep State and his crime. Turns out even Republican elected officials are the Deep State:
"Deep State Hack John Cornyn Signals He’ll Sabotage Trump AG Pick"
https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/15/deep-state-hack-john-cornyn-signals-hell-sabotage-trump-ag-pick/
There we go. That is what 'Deep State' means in practice. It is a pejorative used against people who oppose Trump. It is not really the 'entrenched bureaucracy'. It is just people who say mean things about Trump.
That's stupid. The whole idea of the Deep State is the unelected, entrenched bureaucracy. How the fuck is a sitting Senator emblematic of that?
Also, fuck John Cornyn (not because of Trump, but because he's a big government RINO).
Matt Gaetz and RFK Jr. are not going to be confirmed by the Senate and the Senate is not going to permit recess appointments. While Trump doesn't have to stand for re-election, Senators do.
What are you going to do with yourself if they do get confirmed?
Read his new Act Blue narrative and keep posting.
While Trump doesn’t have to stand for re-election, Senators do.
A lot of people found that out on November 5th.
I don't know. Trump is really stubborn. He'll get his nincompoops doing what they want to do one way or another. The Senate and the Supreme Court won't stand in his way. Anybody controversial will get a recess appointment as soon as enough senators take a bathroom break.
Since, Gaetz seems to be the standout in this article, I'll ask a simple question - in what way is he actually unqualified to hold the office? I'm seeing a lot of sneering and a lot of "everybody knows" BS. But, I'm not seeing much in the way of substance. Is it that he's got funny hair (and I'll concede it is pretty funny looking)? Is it that he's not on good terms with his colleagues in Congress (the majority of whom seem to be grifters, bullies and dimwitted authoritarians)? Honestly, it's pretty laughable watching an ostensibly libertarian website diligently carrying water for the Washington establishment.
He looks like a Hollywood villain or vampire and talks like a douchebag fratboy. That said, he is an absolute pitbull who will fight with every means available to him on issues he finds important. I've heard him in long form a few times and find that I agree with his priorities. My concern is that he could go too far if fully unleashed. Maybe that's what we need.
Oh, he's 'qualified' for the position in the same sense that anyone appointed to any political office is 'qualified' - he has a pulse.
The better question is, is he 'qualified' to be effective in the position that he is appointed to? I mean, if you all really do want to do some house cleaning in the Department of Justice, don't you want someone who stands a reasonable chance of not being steamrolled and undermined by the bureaucracy at every turn, someone who doesn't have a history of making bad decisions and is very likely going to be compromised by scandal?
Frankly, from the Republican point of view, I can't see Matt Gaetz as a serious candidate for Attorney General except as just blind loyalty to Trump.
How qualified was the tranny luggage thief?
Gaetz has a law degree from William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, and is currently a member of the Florida Bar, and he sat on the Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government...
...but because he doesn't wear drag he doesn't meet Lying Jeffy's high standards.
Has Matt Gaetz led a bureaucratic organization like this before? Has he been a law partner? Has he been in any institutional leadership role whatsoever? He got a law degree, good for him. Since then, he was a backbencher in the Florida legislature, then a backbencher in Congress, and a professional Twitter troll.
If any (D) had that same resume you would be bitching about how thin it was. Heck even Chase Oliver has more leadership experience than Matt Gaetz does and you were whining about how thin his resume was. Yet more proof you are nothing more than a disingenuous Trump shill.
“Has Matt Gaetz led a bureaucratic organization like this before?”
I sure fucking hope not.
You’re such a petty kneejerk authoritarian you don’t realize that libertarians find the parts you love about the bureaucratic state anathema. Nobody wants another of your awful inside made men. That's what the country voted against.
I sure fucking hope not.
Why, because you deliberately want to send a sheep to the wolves? What exactly do you think you will accomplish by sending an inexperienced troll to do a professional's job? It is going to end in sadness and despair for your team. Is this what you want?
He’s vastly more qualified than Obama was for president. So why are you naysaying? I can’t believe a libertarian is suggesting a deep state AG is what we need.
someone who stands a reasonable chance of not being steamrolled and undermined by the bureaucracy at every turn
So bureaucrats don't like him.
very likely going to be compromised by scandal
The only scandal I'm aware of involving Gaetz is the one that bureaucrats manufactured.
a history of making bad decisions
I have no idea what you're referring to here, so I'm going to steal a base and assume you mean that Gaetz pissed of some bureaucrat one time.
It sounds like the only reason you don't want Gaetz running the DOJ is that bureaucrats hate him.
Bureaucrats are not likely to like anyone that Trump would realistically appoint. So that's not really the issue. The issue is, does the nominee have the competence and the expertise to take on those bureaucrats who hate him and will try to undermine him?
He can't do any worse a job than that little troll Jeff Sessions or the slightly bigger troll Merrick Garland.
Is there a single Republican you think could stand their ground against these bureaucrats?
Two years practicing law and never prosecuted a case. So woefully inexperienced
The fact that he's a hebephile, more generally a sexual predator, is an immature heckler, supported Trump's attempts to overturn thew 2020 election, etc renders him unfir as a matter of character - in any decent admin, but are positive qualifications amongst the Trumpenproletariat.
But as Trump supporters in general regard sexual predation as acceptable, verging on the compulsory, no wonder he has his defenders here.
I’m pretty sure those allegations were made up by the bureaucracy. Didn’t they also have someone extort his dad?
But as Trump supporters in general regard sexual predation as acceptable, verging on the compulsory, no wonder he has his defenders here.
LOL, what is this, opposite day? It's your side that's pro-grooming, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
"...The fact that he’s a hebephile, more generally a sexual predator, is an immature heckler, supported Trump’s attempts to overturn thew 2020 election, etc renders him unfir as a matter of character – in any decent admin, but are positive qualifications amongst the Trumpenproletariat..."
SRG is a 5-gallon bucket full of shit.
The biggest complaints about him, besides the creepy accusations about him fooling around with underage girls (still yet to be confirmed, since leftists are pedophiles and/or pedophile apologists and are just as likely pulling a Blasey Ford on him) are that he's a total bridge burner who doesn't play well with others. Honestly, the latter just tells me that he'd be the Eric Holder or Merrick Garland of the Trump administration, a hatchet man who will go after the left the way the left went after conservatives during the Obama and Biden administrations.
So really, they're upset that they might have to choke down their own medicine.
Donnie only wants ass-kissing loyalists for his new cabinet. Neo-Nazi like Pete Hegseth? No problem. Teeny groomer like Gaetz? Matt is new Attorney General!
Herschel Walker for Commerce!
Yeah, as opposed to all of the "Let's Go Brandon" shirts worn by Biden's "qualified" cabinet.
"The President is naming loyalists to his admin! Also, it hurts when I slam my head in a hot oven!"
Ah, whatabout, the natural response of the Trumpist.
Are you SERIOUSLY expecting a President to name people who oppose him?
Trump DID THAT last term, you imbecilic fuckwit.
Why do you have any expectation of any President to do that? You have LITERALLY never made a comment about a President besides Trump.
He learned from his last term.
I wonder why Sidney Powell hasn't got a position yet.
Would she be one of the surprise recess appointments?
Or is he saving her to replace Sotomayor on the Supreme Court?
Why are you asking me? I don't know or care.
You have the inside narratives from MSNBC.
Ideas™ !
Sarcasmic on White Mike violence. Is the honeymoon finally over?
You could hear the slap from the backhand all the way over here.
Rachel maddow and Psaki use this exact narrative. Odd.
Maybe Hershel Walker for the nationwide Abortion Czar. He certainly knows a thing or two about abortions.
Sidney Powell could be ambassador to Venezuela, where she can finally uncover that proof of Zombie Hugo Chavez hacking Dominion voting machines.
Jeff won't be happy until Kermit Gosnell gets the Abortion Czar tiara.
Lol
"Maybe Hershel Walker for the nationwide Abortion Czar. He certainly knows a thing or two about abortions."
Maybe Doug Emhoff. He also has experience there.
Pete is a neo nazi now? Is there any lie you won't push?
Oh noes, shrike the hicklib pederast is upset because a GOP President might nominate people that will carry out his agenda! That never happens when a Democrat is in charge!
If you had any self-respect, you'd eat Kurt Cobain's breakfast, vermin.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
The stock market is getting sand-blasted today. Semis and healthcare demolished.
Reason - tariffs and Donnie’s nutcase pick for HHS.
I made good money today.
Remember 2022, when your #DefendBidenAtAllCosts gaslighting campaign went into overdrive? You insisted we should all be thankful for Bidenomics - and anyone who disagreed had been brainwashed by "wingnut.com."
Then it turned out 2022 was Wall Street's worst year since 2008.
Yes! 2022 was a bitch.
Then Sleepy Joe put the economy in red hot boss quim mode!
"Then Sleepy Joe put the economy in red hot boss quim mode!"
The results of the election say otherwise.
Upped government spending and hiring and cooked the books. Red hot!
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
My portfolio is doing great, hicklib. Sucks that you're too stupid to play the markets properly!
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Trump's cabinet picks aren't "bizarre". They're Trumpian. And Senate Republicans have never stood up to Trump, and they aren't going to start now. You better get used to "bizarre", Jake, because you're going to be seeing a lot of it.
lol *snort*
"And Senate Republicans have never stood up to Trump, and they aren’t going to start now."
From your lips to God's ears.
Thune is a monster, so I hope he's cowed.
I have it on good authority, meaning anonymous internet legal experts, that even if Thune says no to a recess, if Speaker Johnson says yes, then the Constitution gives the President the power to resolve the disagreement and say Congress is in recess. Myself, I have doubts that the Executive can say that one house of the Legislative is in recess. I believe the Judicial will end up telling us that.
But if anyone knows for sure.
I don't buy the theory. Even so, I would rather be hopeful for it than become resigned to Republicans squandering their majority because establishment assholes ignore the base who voted them in.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article II, Section 3 states the following regarding the President
The bolded text clearly indicates that the President can adjourn either house of Congress if the other is also adjourned. However, it appears that can only take place "on extraordinary Occasions." I would hope that an Originalist SCOTUS wouldn't consider "I wanted to make recess appointments but an uncooperative Senate was still in session" to be an extraordinary occasion.
Thanks for posting that. Have say I want to see all of the nominees confirmed by the senate but thought the recess appointment strategy was sketchy. Clearly the president has the unambiguous authority to adjourn either or both houses. I hope it doesn't come to that but it's time to move on one way or another.
What you're really telling us is that the Republican party has a problem with RINOs that don't represent their voters and go along to get along representatives. There are enough Rs to allow most everything the Ds want, but basically no Ds step up against their party outside of votes where they can offer symbolic resistance.
Look, we're talking about our sacred three letter agencies that we wrote 150 articles demanding be abolished!
Why not allow hearings? How do we know what RJK Jr. wants to do or how he would approach an issue? Same for all the others. Having confirmation hearings, then hold a vote to confirm or not to confirm. Recess appointments for Cabinet positions is swampy.
"How do we know what RJK Jr. wants to do or how he would approach an issue?"
He's only been banging on about it since 2020.
Because it will turn into a pointless shit show full of posturing and grandstanding and accomplish nothing?
Like I said, 22 of 23 of Biden's picks were confirmed and the only won who wasn't dropped out before the vote, because she was a Twitter addict who deleted 1,000 of her unhinged Twitter rants after she got nominated.
Trump should be allowed to pick who he wants. Disagreeing with a pick politically has never been an acceptable reason to reject an appointment. Otherwise no one would ever get appointed.
For the party who was so concerned about democracy, they sure are hesitant to let the voters have what they asked for.
Because it will turn into a pointless shit show full of posturing and grandstanding and accomplish nothing?
Oh, so you mean that it will force Senators to go on the record and say “yes, I affirmatively support a conspiracy theory monger to lead HHS” and “yes, I affirmatively support a troll for AG”?
If these nominees are such stellar picks they will sail through their confirmation hearings. They will turn the grandstanding questions from Senators back at them and use them to generate likes and clicks on social media. It will make them AND Trump even more popular. Don’t you want to see Matt Gaetz make a fool of Chuck Schumer at a committee hearing? Would you not be entertained?
Trump should be allowed to pick who he wants.
Here is a novel thought - maybe Trump should be held to the same standard as every other fucking president, INCLUDING Trump himself in his first term? Quit it with the endless excuses and endless benefit of the doubt. Trump is not a God, not a pope and not a king. His nominees should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the nominees from every other president.
For the party who was so concerned about democracy, they sure are hesitant to let the voters have what they asked for.
For the party who always seems so concerned about obeying the Constitution, they sure are hesitant to follow its very clear prescription for Senate advice and consent.
Fuck you. You don't want to vote, you want to pettifog like a sperg dunking dipshit.
If you really wanted a say in the individual decisions these agencies make, you'd demand any authority be derived from explicit and duly passed legislation and we wouldn't even be here.
You need to pretend recess appointments are swampy to distract from how hard you suck deep state cock as status quo.
There are some RINOs in the Senate that were elected *because* they are RINOs. Otherwise, they would have gotten primaried. Some states like moderates.
FYI, Greenwald is fucking murdering it this morning.
And here..
Tell someone ten years ago that we're getting called far right for cheering on Greenwald, Tulsi and RFK Jr. in 2024 by Democrat neocon censorship fanatics, and they'd call us liars.
Biden went 22 for 23.
Either Gaetz gets in, or DeSantis sends him to the Senate.
Their choice.
The more hair on fire hysteria I see from Reason editors the more I want to see Gaetz appointed by any means necessary.
As long as it Gaetz their dander up.
That's how I came to support Kavanaugh's nomination despite really not liking his judicial philosophy.
Bizarre Cabinet Picks ...
Um, he is appointing politicians to fill political positions. Is that "bizarre" because no President of the United States has ever picked politicians for political positions in the Administration before? Or maybe you think that's bizarre because those he tapped aren't career deep state insiders? Or maybe the previous administration's cabinet was so much less bizarre? https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-cabinet-picks-are-unqualified-says-party-of-pete-buttigieg-rachel-levine-kjp-sam-brinton
Garland, Levine....Blinkin, and on and on..bizarre not accomplished folks but they check the box right Reason.
Did you write that article holding your spirit crystal and whispering, "I wish I wish I wish" into it?
51 Jake. And Trump has them.
Stop being gay and retarded about this, Jake. I'm by no means the #1 Trump fan around here or anywhere else. But life comes at you fast. Deal with reality instead of pretending you can wish your sad loser fever dreams into existence.
"including Fox News host Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense" is an example of extreme bias and is insulting to the reader and frankly I expected more from Reason and Jacob Sullum.
Major Pete Hegseth, 2 time recipient of the Bronze Star (awarded for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone), 2 time recipient of the Army Commendation Medal (presented for sustained acts of heroism or meritorious service), however you fail to mention this and instead attempt to propagandize by focusing on his role as a cable television host.
I have not even decided if Major Pete Hegseth should become the secretary of defense or not. My complaint has nothing about if he would be a a good choice. My problem is the underhanded and frankly dirty tactic being used to to position Major Pete Hegseth as being unqualified. This is a repulsive as a service member inflating their record by stealing valor. You, Jacob Sullum and Reason Magazine are guilty or stealing valor from Major Pete Hegseth by not even mentioning that Pete Hegseth of Fox News is in reality Major Pete Hegseth.
It's items like this that make me keenly aware that you have many of the same biases and dirty tactics that the corporate media have.
And people think the election is over. Democrats will continue their campaign against Trump until 2029, and possibly further. See, for example, the Washington Post.
What a surprise, The Trumpists here support the appointments of an unqualified sexual predator - on underage girls no less, a Russian asset, and a likely Christian nationalist, also unqualified, because the Fuhrer has commanded it. You lot are tragically obedient peasants.
One does not have to be a “Trumpist” to question the criteria in common use by Presidents over the last century to determine the qualifications for their appointees. If you are tacitly or overtly a believer in the administrative state, then the prime qualifications for political appointees would be proven bureaucrat skills coupled with loyalty to the Administration’s priorities. If you are checking off demographic boxes to ingratiate yourself with your sociopolitical supporters, then you end up with the Biden Administration. In the unlikely event of a Libertarian Administration some day, the qualification for appointment to the Cabinet would be the ruthless focus on eliminating the entire Department you are being appointed to head, while rolling their few Constitutionally appropriate functions into the other few remaining Federal Departments. I categorically reject your implied qualification criteria here unless and until you clarify them.
What a surprise! The full of shit SRG is crying.
FOAD, asshole.
Wow, a leftie who likes to slander people. So different than the usual leftie.
Not a lefty, you economically ignorant pillock.
The Trumpists here support the appointments of an unqualified sexual predator – on underage girls no less,
Which so far has been of the Blasey Ford variety.
a Russian asset,
Hillary made the claim, so it's automatically a lie.
and a likely Christian nationalist, also unqualified, because the Fuhrer has commanded it.
I realize that, as a left-wing Jew, you hate Christians and want to see them exterminated, but that doesn't mean he's a "Christian nationalist."
Still not a left-winger. and I don’t hate Christians in general, and it would be foolish and prejudiced to do so. I do have suspicions about Christian nationalists though, but that’s only due to about 1800 years of history.
There is actual evidence of Gabbard's pro-Putin stance. She's either officially a Russian asset, or a volunteer. I don't give a shit what Hillary said.
My guess is that Goetz is a throwaway nominee. The RINOs a vote his nomination down, but their constituents, who just voted for Trump, aren’t going to be happy if they vote down Joe of his major nominees. I think voting down Goetz gives Trump DOD, CIA, HHS, etc. He’s not really qualified for the job anyway. It’s the bureaucracy that’s the problem, and I don’t see him as having the knowledge and competence to take them on. If the Dems were really smart, they would all green light Goetz, and spend their ammunition on the nominees who could seriously hurt them and their Deep State allies. But he is too tempting of a target. Which is why I think that Trump trolled them and nominated him.
Also note that a lot of the RINO Senators voted for a lot of Biden’s nominees, who were just as unqualified, if not more. Why, as Republicans, would they vote for unqualified Biden nominees, but not better qualified Trump nominees? They might want to, to stay invited to the better DC parties, but that’s something that will majorly piss off their Trump voting constituencies.
What is so bad that it can't withstand the light of open hearings ? What are they hiding ?