And in other news (and so it begins): "President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday demanded that the next Senate GOP leader allow him to make appointments to his administration and the courts without Senate approval."
It has never quite been legally established what “advice and consent of the Senate” (the Constitutional language for appointments) actually requires from the Senate. It’s always just been assumed that the Senate has to vote to approve cabinet members and judges, and it’s never come up as an actual issue.
Democracy’s foundation is the widely-shared respect for customs and traditions, and not primarily the Constitution. An awful lot of damage is about to be done without necessarily violating the letter of the Constitution; besides, the only interpretation that counts will be that of the Supreme Court majority that has been carefully selected by Leonard Leo.
I can imagine new Senate rules that allow en-banc certification of Trump’s cabinet nominations and slates of new judges.
Likewise I can image the Senate abandoning its practice of pro-forma sessions, and instead periodically adjourning so that Trump can make lots of recess appointments.
This is where the result in PA-Sen looms large. If Casey somehow wins, then the Republicans will still need Murkowski and Collins to override Harris’ tie-break (or they will at least need to get them to abstain) until Jan. 20. After that point, they will still need them after Vance’s seat is vacated until it’s filled. Not that I have any faith in either of them to stand up when it matters, but it is at least an obstacle.
If McCormick wins, then Collins and Murkowski are irrelevant.
I think it really depends on who the leader is and how they see things. McConnell liked the filibuster because it relieved pressure on him to pass things that were popular with the GOP base and/or donors but highly unpopular with most voters.
Politicians are loathe to do one thing and that's concede power. I'll be very surprised if the GOP Senate caucus just decides to give up all of theirs to Heir Trump, especially as he is now term-limited. Note the contours of Thune and Cornyn's statements (I don't think Scott has a chance to win Majority Leader).
They can't do anything about judges in the lame duck session unless both of Manchin and Sinema refuse to play ball, and that hasn't been a problem up to this point.
Joe Manchin crowing and crying about bipartisanship and how Democrats ignored moderates. What's he saying about Trump demanding the Senate rules be blown up around advise and consent?
And in other news (and so it begins): "President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday demanded that the next Senate GOP leader allow him to make appointments to his administration and the courts without Senate approval."
https://wapo.st/3YFBp6V
"100% agree. I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible.”
– Rick Scott, aspiring Senate Majority Leader
"All options are on the table.”
– John Thune, a second aspiring Senate Majority Leader
"It is unacceptable for Senate Ds to blockade President Trump’s cabinet appointments."
– John Cornyn, a third aspiring Senate Majority Leader
"Additionally, no Judges should be approved during [Biden’s remaining time in office]."
– Donald Trump
It has never quite been legally established what “advice and consent of the Senate” (the Constitutional language for appointments) actually requires from the Senate. It’s always just been assumed that the Senate has to vote to approve cabinet members and judges, and it’s never come up as an actual issue.
Democracy’s foundation is the widely-shared respect for customs and traditions, and not primarily the Constitution. An awful lot of damage is about to be done without necessarily violating the letter of the Constitution; besides, the only interpretation that counts will be that of the Supreme Court majority that has been carefully selected by Leonard Leo.
I can also imagine the filibuster will be history January 2.
I can imagine new Senate rules that allow en-banc certification of Trump’s cabinet nominations and slates of new judges.
Likewise I can image the Senate abandoning its practice of pro-forma sessions, and instead periodically adjourning so that Trump can make lots of recess appointments.
This is where the result in PA-Sen looms large. If Casey somehow wins, then the Republicans will still need Murkowski and Collins to override Harris’ tie-break (or they will at least need to get them to abstain) until Jan. 20. After that point, they will still need them after Vance’s seat is vacated until it’s filled. Not that I have any faith in either of them to stand up when it matters, but it is at least an obstacle.
If McCormick wins, then Collins and Murkowski are irrelevant.
Given that Dems were pushing so hard for that, it would be appropriate for them to do that to us, I suppose.
Did Democrats do it?
I think it really depends on who the leader is and how they see things. McConnell liked the filibuster because it relieved pressure on him to pass things that were popular with the GOP base and/or donors but highly unpopular with most voters.
Politicians are loathe to do one thing and that's concede power. I'll be very surprised if the GOP Senate caucus just decides to give up all of theirs to Heir Trump, especially as he is now term-limited. Note the contours of Thune and Cornyn's statements (I don't think Scott has a chance to win Majority Leader).
They can't do anything about judges in the lame duck session unless both of Manchin and Sinema refuse to play ball, and that hasn't been a problem up to this point.
He congratulated McCormick on winning PA for no reason at all. Expect nothing from him that bends whatever imaginary rules there are
Joe Manchin crowing and crying about bipartisanship and how Democrats ignored moderates. What's he saying about Trump demanding the Senate rules be blown up around advise and consent?
Manchin is very conservative – he is no moderate; that is an abuse of the term.