# Trump's Cabinet of Curiosities **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 10, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367 "2016-11-10T16:28:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/801 "2017-01-10T02:26:20Z")
Something changed between McConnell’s 2009 letter and Schumer’s 2017 reply. Something that made the minority leader’s opinion on what should or should not be optional for Cabinet confirmation hearings largely irrelevant. Any guesses what that might have been? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/802 "2017-01-10T02:33:42Z")
Who cares? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/803 "2017-01-10T02:36:49Z")
Incessant and irrational Republican obstructionism at every fucking turn? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/804 "2017-01-10T02:44:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > … the far left… You keep saying this. I don’t think it means what you think it does. But then, I’m not at all sure what the heck you think it means. Clearly, the intent is deprecatory, belittling. An epithet for a splinter group, with no significant political presence. So, can hardly be Hillary, right? Given all those votes. You probably heard. So, good, Hillary is not “far left”. Rather reassuring for a radical lefty like myself, frankly. So what _do_ you mean? That nice little grandmother from San Francisco? She “far left”? Did they both enjoy this inordinately? Inappropriately? Like a fart joke at church? (And c’mon, admit it. It was the perfect squelch, he trolled McConnel with the deftness of a world class fly-fisherman. You chuckled, and then had to remind yourself to cut it out. If you had done what he had done, you would have been insufferably smug for a week.) What about Al Franken, and Ms. Klobuchar? The “far left” isn’t nice, and they are native Minnesotans! Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/805 "2017-01-10T02:54:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Something changed between McConnell’s 2009 letter and Schumer’s 2017 reply. Something that made the minority leader’s opinion on what should or should not be optional for Cabinet confirmation hearings largely irrelevant. Any guesses what that might have been? The asshole is in charge of the outhouse? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/806 "2017-01-10T03:03:50Z")
Well, they’re the job creators. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/807 "2017-01-10T03:16:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You keep saying this. I don’t think it means what you think it does. But then, I’m not at all sure what the heck you think it means. It’s funny. Fifteen years ago, I was a moderate Republican. Voted for Dole. Voted For W (the first time, not the second). The only major thing I’ve changed my tune on is gay marriage (now pro, then anti). But somehow, I’ve become “far left”. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/808 "2017-01-10T07:34:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think this is a moral issue. I think it’s some bullshit obstructionism by the Left and some hard-nosed politics by the Right, made possible by Harry Reid, which I find ironic. “Bullshit obstructionism”? Expecting Trump’s nominees to go through the exact same vetting process Obama put his nominees through willingly, to weed out things like conflicts of interest, ethical issues, and the like, before the senate hearings, now somehow qualifies as “Bullshit obstructionism”? Interestingly enough, someone who matters quite clearly disagrees with you. [http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/313369-schumer-sends-mcconnell-back-his-own-2009-letter-on-nominations](http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/313369-schumer-sends-mcconnell-back-his-own-2009-letter-on-nominations) McConnell pledged over the weekend that no nominee would get a full Senate vote before all of their paperwork has been turned in. He added on Monday after meeting with Trump that “everybody will be properly vetted as they have been in the past.” > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Something changed between McConnell’s 2009 letter and Schumer’s 2017 reply. Something that made the minority leader’s opinion on what should or should not be optional for Cabinet confirmation hearings largely irrelevant. Any guesses what that might have been? Did you just turn into a lawyer or something? Hey Ditka, we’re not calling you out because your procedural politics are wrong. Clearly, the republicans in congress could push Bernie Madoff through as the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau on day one if they were so inclined. We’re criticizing your apparent lack of care that they may, in fact, do something quite analogous to that. We’re pointing out that it’s insanely hypocritical to obstruct and deny for 8 years as hard as they possibly could, then turn around and refuse to do even the most basic of vetting of themselves once they have power. And yes, it is a tragedy that, after years of a republican minority being able to bring politics to an absolute standstill, the democrats made the decision to nip that in the bud, and the republicans immediately took advantage of that in unreasonable, unethical ways. It’s a crying shame that only one party can be expected to govern like adults, and that we have the choice between the republicans obstructing everything constantly when out of power or acting unethically with impunity while in power. But for some reason, I don’t think that’s your opinion. You seem glad that the GOP is pushing for senate hearings before the nominees have even been through the Office of Government Ethics. I have no idea why that could even be the case, other than pure schadenfreude and “MY SIDE WINS FUCK YOU”, and I sincerely hope that’s not the full extent of your thinking on these issues. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/809 "2017-01-10T07:39:41Z")
The hearing on Betsy DeVil…pardon, DeVos…has been postponed. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/senate-postpones-confirmation-hearing-for-betsy-devos-trumps-education-pick/2017/01/09/be0ea7cc-d6e6-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e\_story.html?utm\_term=.93f7d5d1ee46](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/senate-postpones-confirmation-hearing-for-betsy-devos-trumps-education-pick/2017/01/09/be0ea7cc-d6e6-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.93f7d5d1ee46) > [@](#): > > …“Betsy DeVos is an outstanding nominee who has complied with all of the committee’s requirements and no one doubts that she will be confirmed as Education Secretary,” an aide to Alexander said. “This hearing delay is simply to accommodate the Senate schedule.”… ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/810 "2017-01-10T07:53:13Z")
Perhaps noteworthy, **Ditka** : > **[Republicans Think Capitol Hill’s Rules Are for Suckers](https://newrepublic.com/article/139707/republicans-think-capitol-hills-rules-suckers)** > > They broke norms to stymie Democrats. Now they're doing it to help Trump. The whole article is worth a read, but this part in particular is telling: > [@](#): > > But a key distinction between Democratic and Republican brinksmanship lies in precipitating events. > > Democrats did indeed change the rules of the Senate, but they did not do so lightly—not to confirm a particularly egregious Obama nominee over GOP objections, for instance, or to spike the ethics process. **Reid abolished the filibuster in response to McConnell’s vow to filibuster key Obama nominees irrespective of their qualifications, in order to hobble government agencies with liberal missions (the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and to prevent Obama from flipping ideological balances on federal appeals courts**. > > In that episode, one breach of norms begat another; today, norms are falling because Republicans find adhering to them inconvenient. Democrats will revisit norms when GOP resistance tactics put old norms and basic governing in tension. Each of the above Republican tactics, by contrast, was undertaken out of sheer expediency. Their bar for knocking down norms is if those norms create minor obstacles to the maximal exercise of power. Emphasis mine. Now, if McConnell was interested in acting in the benefit of good governance, he could reintroduce the filibuster, under the condition that the democrats not undergo such brazen misgovernance and overinflation of their own power, and the threat of taking it away again if they abuse it in the way that, um, _he_ did. Of course, he won’t do that. But it’s nice to dream. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/811 "2017-01-10T08:00:41Z")
Yes, of course he won’t. It would be silly for Republicans to play with one set of rules (Reid’s no-filibuster) when they’re in the minority and then turn around and reverse that when they’re in the majority, with reasonable confidence that once they’re back in the minority the Dems would just re-nuke the filibuster. It would be political malpractice. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/812 "2017-01-10T08:16:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, of course he won’t. It would be silly for Republicans to play with one set of rules (Reid’s no-filibuster) when they’really in the minority and then turn around and reverse that when they’re in the majority, with reasonable confidence that once they’re back in the minority the Dems would just re-nuke the filibuster. It would be political malpractice. No, political malpractice would be filibustering any nominee made to certain government posts for the sake of invalidating those government posts when you don’t have the political clout to do it the right way. :rolleyes: Seriously, can’t you see how disgustingly cynical this is? The republicans spent eight years flouting every possible rule in the senate and house to get their way. Then, when the democrats changed the rules in direct response to ploys like that, upon gaining power the republicans immediately turned it around and abused those rule changes. Can you see the difference between “The democrats can’t have the filibuster because then they might filibuster nominees who haven’t been through ethical review” and “The republicans can’t have the filibuster because they might use it to invalidate the National Labor Relations Board”? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/813 "2017-01-10T15:10:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > No, political malpractice would be filibustering any nominee made to certain government posts for the sake of invalidating those government posts when you don’t have the political clout to do it the right way. :rolleyes: Seriously, can’t you see how disgustingly cynical this is? The republicans spent eight years flouting every possible rule in the senate and house to get their way. Then, when the democrats changed the rules in direct response to ploys like that, upon gaining power the republicans immediately turned it around and abused those rule changes. > > Can you see the difference between “The democrats can’t have the filibuster because then they might filibuster nominees who haven’t been through ethical review” and “The republicans can’t have the filibuster because they might use it to invalidate the National Labor Relations Board”? In my view, the Democrats are the ones that started this escalating war over Presidential nominations all the way back with Bork. Specifically regarding the filibuster: they abused it with President Bush. Do you remember the “Gang of 14”? That was organized to avert Republicans going nuclear on the filibuster back in 2005 because Democrats’ abuse of the filibuster against judges that were qualified. Do names like Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, William Pryor, etc. ring a bell? If they do, it’s probably because the Democrats organized filibusters against them, and not because they hadn’t yet had been through ethical review. Your view that it was only Republicans that have violated norms is, in my eyes, rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/814 "2017-01-10T15:51:17Z")
Oh, Christ. Bork again. You honestly don’t see the difference between a nomination getting voted down by the full Senate and one party refusing to consider a nomination? Bork got his full vote in the Senate (after being voted down 9-5 in committee) and lost 58-42. Two Democrats (Hollings, Boren) voted for him while six Republicans (Chaffee, Packwood, Specter, Stafford, Warner, Weicker) voted against. So it wasn’t exactly a party line vote. You can argue that they didn’t vote the way you would have but you can’t argue that he didn’t get a vote. So the Democrats gave Reagan’s nominee one hell of a lot more consideration than Republican’s did for Garland. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/815 "2017-01-10T16:20:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Oh, Christ. Bork again. You honestly don’t see the difference between a nomination getting voted down by the full Senate and one party refusing to consider a nomination? Bork got his full vote in the Senate (after being voted down 9-5 in committee) and lost 58-42. Two Democrats (Hollings, Boren) voted for him while six Republicans (Chaffee, Packwood, Specter, Stafford, Warner, Weicker) voted against. So it wasn’t exactly a party line vote. You can argue that they didn’t vote the way you would have but you can’t argue that he didn’t get a vote. So the Democrats gave Reagan’s nominee one hell of a lot more consideration than Republican’s did for Garland. No, they didn’t. There is no major difference between a vote with a pre-determined outcome and announcing in advance that you won’t vote. The only difference I concede is that actually casting a vote is an act that can be used in future campaigns against the legislator, so I agree that the Democrats against Bork had perhaps slightly more courage than their current GOP brethern. But it’s a tiny difference; the opposition is still free to attack a sitting GOP senator with the charge that they acquiesced in Garland’s shut-out. So if you want to insist that Bork was treated better than Garland, go right ahead. But since your opposition does not agree, and since it’s our perception that informs our actions, your insistence is unavailing. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/816 "2017-01-10T16:26:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, they didn’t. There is no major difference between a vote with a pre-determined outcome and announcing in advance that you won’t vote. The only difference I concede is that actually casting a vote is an act that can be used in future campaigns against the legislator, so I agree that the Democrats against Bork had perhaps slightly more courage than their current GOP brethern. But it’s a tiny difference; the opposition is still free to attack a sitting GOP senator with the charge that they acquiesced in Garland’s shut-out. > > So if you want to insist that Bork was treated better than Garland, go right ahead. But since your opposition does not agree, and since it’s our perception that informs our actions, your insistence is unavailing. There’s a difference between voting announcing you won’t vote. There’s a difference between saying “we disapprove of this guy” and “we disapprove of you even making the nomination”. What Republicans said was that Obama was only entitled to 3/4 of a term. I’d be fine if the Republicans had just voted party line on Garland, but to take a position that a black president isn’t entitled to do his duty for the full term sets an extremely dangerous precedent. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/817 "2017-01-10T17:29:17Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Interestingly enough, someone who matters quite clearly disagrees with you. > > [http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/313369-schumer-sends-mcconnell-back-his-own-2009-letter-on-nominations](http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/313369-schumer-sends-mcconnell-back-his-own-2009-letter-on-nominations) > > McConnell pledged over the weekend that no nominee would get a full Senate vote before all of their paperwork has been turned in. > > He added on Monday after meeting with Trump that “everybody will be properly vetted as they have been in the past.” I’m not sure if you’re aware, but we were talking about one issue (committee hearing prior to OGE paperwork) and the portion of the article you cited refers to a separate issue (full Senate vote prior to OGE paperwork). McConnell doesn’t seem to disagree with me on the first issue. I don’t disagree with him on the second one. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/818 "2017-01-10T17:32:50Z")
BTW, just in case anyone was interested, you can listen to the Sessions hearing here (live right now): [Attorney General Confirmation Hearing, Day 1 Part 1 | C-SPAN.org](https://www.c-span.org/video/?420932-1/attorney-general-nominee-jeff-sessions-testifies-confirmation-hearing&live) ETA: it’s pretty boring, but every now and then a protester starts shouting some gibberish to liven things up. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/819 "2017-01-10T17:41:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > ETA: it’s pretty boring, but every now and then a protester starts shouting some gibberish to liven things up. Bless their hearts. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/820 "2017-01-10T17:41:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, they didn’t. There is no major difference between a vote with a pre-determined outcome and announcing in advance that you won’t vote. The only difference I concede is that actually casting a vote is an act that can be used in future campaigns against the legislator, so I agree that the Democrats against Bork had perhaps slightly more courage than their current GOP brethern. But it’s a tiny difference; the opposition is still free to attack a sitting GOP senator with the charge that they acquiesced in Garland’s shut-out. > > So if you want to insist that Bork was treated better than Garland, go right ahead. But since your opposition does not agree, and since it’s our perception that informs our actions, your insistence is unavailing. Your opposition doesn’t agree that it’s a “tiny difference.” It’s a huge difference. Your instance to the contrary is unavailing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367.md?page=42)