The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Checks and Balances Work: Matt Gaetz Withdraws from AG Nomination
From Gaetz's Tweet; "the incredible support of so many" is the usual marketing-speak, whether in politics or in business, but the "thoughtful feedback" (coupled with "so many" making clear that there were others) signals the truth well, I think:
I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback - and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General.
Of course, it would have been better if there had been no need for checks and balances here; but it's good to see them working. (The checks here, of course, are primarily the Senate, but closely tied to the freedom of public criticism and the eventual prospect of pushback at the ballot box.)
Obligatory hat tip to good ol' Jimmy (or was it Sasha Alex?):
[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.
UPDATE: Quote enlarged a bit, to include the first two paragraphs (I had originally started it with "If men were angels").
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The current US Senator from Florida has been nominated for Sec of State, and if he is confirmed (likely) then the Governor of Florida gets to appoint someone to finish out his term.
Now who might he appoint? And might that have already been in the works?
An interesting constitutional point: The Senate has the ultimate authority on who may or may not be seated among their august body.
An interesting practical point -- MAGA threatening scorched earth is something that a lot of folks don't want to deal with. It's one thing to be a member of the minority party, it's something else entirely to be personally targeted by the POTUS.
Happy to be corrected, but I don't think that's right. As I understand it, Powell v McCormack concluded that each Chamber's right to determine the qualifications of its Members was not a prerequisite to being seated, but consisted in the power to expel by a two-thirds majority.
So they might be able to kick him out fairly quickly, but not to prevent him taking his seat (if properly appointed in accordance with law.)
Not that he's likely to be appointed.
As to the sleaze factor, I think that as the Senate was quite content to have "The Lion Of The Senate" sleazing amongst them, and fully lionized, for nearly 50 years, I hardly think Gaetz would even earn a frown.
Powell v McCormack
My understanding is a bit different.
1. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"
According to P v M, as I understand it, this means that the House, in this case, can make a decision on the elections and on qualifications but only to the extent that the Constitution establishes the qualifications. Can't add qualifications such as not being a child -molesting drug addict. Or as in Powell's case, not being a morally contemptible corrupt asshole. Probably can't disqualify for being a communist or insurrectionist either,
2. Once seated, a member may be expelled but not disqualified. 2/3 of members required for expulsion. It seems possible that expulsion may ensue from anything.
3. Expulsion and disqualification are not fungible. That is, even if 2/3 of members (as in Powell's case) declare a constitutionally qualified member who was elected to be unqualified, it doesn't work. They must, as i understand it, vote for expulsion, not disqualification.
Been a while, but that's my recollection.
Perhaps world famous constitutional law authority Brettmore will weigh in.
Lee, it wasn't just Kennedy. Google "Waitress Sandwich" -- that included Pat Dodds (D-CT).
Who is Pat Dodds (D-CT)?
Google "Waitress Sandwich" -- it wasn't just Teddy....
1. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that Ron DeSantis is going to appoint Gaetz to that seat. He is more likely to appoint Kamala Harris.
2. If this was all an elaborate plot to do that, why the AG nomination?
Ever hear the concept of "drawing fire"?
Not in any context that seems to be relevant to what happened here, no.
Can you explain what you think the plan was/is?
The “distraction” could have been a problem in some other system where the Senate didn’t need to confirm.
It is useful that there are checks and balances present that prevent certain people from being gods without any restraints. Even dictators and kings will find such restraints in practice.
It is also possible Gaetz was a tub thrown to a whale, to quote another expression tossed around in Madison’s time, and still very bad nominees will now have a somewhat easier time.
Anyway, there is no need to simply cite Jimmy for a basic principle that was shared by many people any more than the golden rule was merely something that Jesus tossed around.
As to the ballot box, that didn’t do too much to answer the clown show of the House of Representatives. They got another two years.
And, how did the “ballot box” work with Trump, who nominated this guy? Ultimately, it seems, the 22nd Amendment is the bigger check for him.
The criminal justice system has been a mixed bag.
Whether intentional or not (I think Pres. Trump liked what Gaetz was saying), the failure of this nominee will likely result in less scrutiny for other picks who at least aren't quite as bad.
I'm thinking of Justice Alito, who get very little pushback after Pres. Bush's original choice, Harriet Myers, went down in flames.
I'm not sure that I agree with you that there was "very little pushback" on Alito. I remember three of my law professors signing petitions to oppose his nomination and there was a failed attempt to filibuster his nomination. When he was finally confirmed it was 58-42 which was the closest confirmation vote since Clarence Thomas (52-48).
To the extent that the opposition to Alito's (and later Robert's) nomination failed, I think it was largely due to the Gang of 14 Deal reached between 7 Republican and 7 Democratic Senators. With 7 Democratic Senators agreeing not to filibuster a judicial nominee unless there was some "extraordinary" circumstance, there was no way for Democrats to have the 40 votes that they needed to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.
Well, I admit that this makes me feel somewhat dejected. That they may have gotten their first scalp is depressing enough but it seems to suggest that the rot at the DOJ may be permanent. No reformers allowed. I hope not but not really sure at this point.
Don't worry, Gaetz was never a serious pick anyway. It was always a gambit to duck the release of the ethics report. He'll find another way back into Congress. Conveniently timed to distract from a host of other problematic picks.
That's your president. Playing for TV screens, not interested in governing.
9000th reminder that you cannot read Trump's (or anyone else's) mind.
9001st reminder that one can infer what someone is thinking based on what that person says and does, and has said and done in the past.
I don't think we disagree with the premise, but we might disagree with what the inference is. I don't see any indication from past actions that Pres. Trump has ever viewed executive power as anything other than a blunt instrument. Nominating someone unseriously to help achieve some other agenda is not characteristic.
I'm not reading his mind. I'm reading his actions.
He's an idiot. It's not hard to see how the fuckwit operates. It's obvious that Vance isn't involved in these picks, for instance. Who knows what that little twerp is up to.
Democrats will certainly try to Christine Blasey Ford all the nominees. And the weaponized deep state appparutus behind their efforts apparently isn't going to go quietly.
But just curious, more as an aside, on that governing thing, remind me again, what exactly is Ol'Joe doing these days, apart from starting WWIII?
The Bot Riva is programmed to give us right-wing reasoning in all its “glory”:
1. Trump’s a lifelong criminal, but it’s so unfair to notice!
2. Gaetz likes drug-fueled orgies with underage girls, but its so unfair to bring that up!
"...what exactly is Ol’Joe doing these days, apart from starting WWIII?"
Holding a job he's not mentally qualified to hold?
And yet he's still more mentally competent than Trump. Go figure.
Not that really that clever. Try parroting the bot thing again.
Bot not programmed to express ordinary human emotions; all it can figure out is whether D or R won a particular news cycle.
We can't all be bat shit crazy trolls. By the way, do people actually hire bat shit crazy trolls for anything, well, productive? Just curious because I sure as hell wouldn't. Not even greeting people at a Walmart. You'd just offend everyone. But who knows? Take a shower and give it a shot.
I think he just fell out of the HOR and into the Senate.
Me too.
I don't think so. DeSantis has control of Rubio's Senate seat and I doubt it goes to Gaetz. The MAGA talk that I am seeing wants RNC chair Lara Trump to get it. DeSantis is, however, term limited for governor.
So assuming he doesn't get Rubio's senate seat, would Gaetz put his hat in the ring for Governor of FL at the next election??
The Attorney General nominee is just gonna end up being another institutionalist swamp creature, aren't they?
In what way is Gaetz, who has had a single job outside of politics and was just elected for his fifth term in congress, not a “swamp creature”?
You're too generous, NS.
You forgot to mention that Gaetz only got to his position because he is the son of a notorious swamp creature.
Big Daddy Don is as swampy as they come from what I've read.
Different swamp, though. More gators in the Gaetz's. Try saying that five times fast.
I'd prefer to live in a world where the word "Gaetz" never comes out of my piehole one more time, let alone five more times!
Bondi's certainly a swamp creature, but whether she's an institutionalist, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
From what leftist hole are you getting all this garbage about Bondi? Is this really the best you can do? Sad.
Probably the 25k illegal donation from the Trump Foundation to her re-election campaign for Atty Gen in Florida that just happened to coincide with the investigation of the fraudulent Trump University.
Luckily for Trump, the donation was timed to prevent FL from joining a lawsuit for the FL residents defrauded in the Trump Univ grift. Too bad for them. But Pam showed her loyalty to Dear Leader so look at her now.
A donation which Bondi personally solicited from Trump.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
Nice but incomplete. The ultimate decentralization and federalism is to let individual people challenge laws. When the Supreme Court rules that not even Representatives have standing to due for spending violations, checks and balances are meaningless. And taxpayers? Surely you jest!
Gaetz was, of course, elected for another term in a Congress just a couple of weeks ago. While he has resigned from his current term, is there anything (beyond the potential release of the ethics report, obviously) preventing him from showing up in January to be sworn in?
Nope.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/matt-gaetz-withdraws-congress-resign-b2651517.html
This suggests he resigned from his current term, advised he was not planning to return in Jan to be sworn into the new Congress and the Speaker of the House notified FL gov Desantis of the vacancy so they can call for a special election to fill the seat for the upcoming Congress.
Plus, if he somehow does come back, then the ethics committee's jurisdiction also comes back and the ethics report he resigned to prevent becoming public will also come out. So I am going with no. He won't be seated in the next session of Congress.
For practical reasons, I agree he’s unlikely to try. The preemptive resignation just seems so odd that I’m curious about the legal significance if he did.
I'm curious as well, but it's hard to tease out the legal significance of the preemptive resignation since it would presumably be the House resolving the issue, not a court. And unless there is a special election to replace Gaetz, the House would obviously just admit him.
I'm also really curious what would happen if Gaetz reneged on the preemptive resignation and DeSantis moved forward with a special election anyway. Could Gaetz get a court to step in and stop the special election? Or would it just be up to the House to evaluate both claims to the seat and determine which one to admit (assuming Gaetz didn't just enter and win the special election himself)?
I believe the courts would put a stop to it if an election had been organized to replace Gaetz.
Otherwise you run into the scenario where someone pretends to resign, waits until a ton of money has been spent on their replacement election, and then if the outcome isn't desirable, they take their seat instead of the winner of the election.
Calvinball is unlikely to be tolerated.
Re: the Ethics Report
Eh...
It's doubtful that there are any legal consequences from the report. So any damage from it is either reputational, or in the manner of sanctions from the ethics commitee.
When he was going for AG, the reputational mattered, because he would have to get confirmed. But if he's still in the house? Well, what does he care? Everyone there already knows he's slime, and short of trying to vote him out of the House (like they did to Santos) all they can do is remove his seniority for commitees and what-not.
Which is to say... as AG candidate, the report was potentially damaging. As just another house member? Embarrassing, but probably not that big a deal.
Which is to say... if he returns to congress, it'll be released, and after a few weeks it'll blow over.
That's my prediction anyway.
Reached for comment, Gaetz was quoted as saying "now that I retired my seat in Congress and will no longer be pursuing confirmation for Attorney General, this will allow me more time to pursue my real passion in life: other people's children."
.... well played, sir. Well played.
No notes.
Ouch!
Honest question: Does the AG have to be a lawyer?
Why or why not?
Assume for the sake of argument that Ted Cruz was appointed -- Cruz is likely a member of the TX bar, maybe the MA bar (Harvard is in MA) but he isn't a member of the DC bar (I assume). And that's where he's going to be practicing law...
Lawyers representing the federal government have to be admitted to practice law, but they don’t have to be admitted in the state they work in.
You assume wrong, of course. Cruz is currently a member in good standing of the DC bar.
Can anyone remember a time Ed assumed right?
Is that just a function of 28 U.S.C. § 530C(c)(1)? If so, I'm skeptical that it applies to the AG. Could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that the AG's salary, which is set by statute, qualifies as "funds available to the Attorney General . . . used to pay compensation for services provided by an individual employed as an attorney."
I'd also argue that the AG is not "an individual employed as an attorney."
I suppose threats due to universal scorn is kind of a check and balance, if you think about it.
Used to be, anyways...
Donald Trump:
Although Bondi is not someone I personally would want for anything, unless there are some unknown issues, she will probably be easily confirmed. And if as AG she focuses on "fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again" rather than raping the institution, she will probably be OK. If her service becomes a problem it would seem most likely to be as a result of her insatiable desire for attention. Trump doesn't like his servants to be attention hogs.
A piece with some more details:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/you-dont-have-votes-trump-matt-gaetz-attorney-general
My takeaway:
1. Matt Gaetz isn’t going to be the Attorney General of the United States. That’s good!
2. Matt Gaetz also isn’t in Congress any more. That’s good!
3. Republicans in the Senate are willing to stand up to Trump if they think he’s doing something bad enough. That’s good!
4. When Trump gets that kind of pushback, he’s willing to give up and take the loss instead of trying to force a legally-dubious theory instead. That’s good!
I’m sure I’m going to feel a lot less good real soon, but I’ll take it for now.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Agree!
5. Trump is in the business of settling scores. Now he has more scores to settle. If you're a Democrat, then that's going to be good news.
Isn't it true (as I've read) that Gaetz's accusers so lacked credibility that the DOJ declined to prosecute their claims? If so, isn't a bad thing that a nomination can be stopped by noncredible accusations of sexual misconduct?
Quit reading The Federalist; it lies.
Why do you think Gaetz withdrew, if these allegations were so ephemeral?