I don’t know. I think once the Republicans get past Trump, they’ll make a huge effort to discredit Clinton in an effort to unite around a common objective (“we hate Democrats”) and improve their image (“if the Democrats are so bad, we must be good”).
Will it end up hurting them in the long run? Probably. But I think the party’s focus on blind opposition is too ingrained for them to abandon it.
That “Assistant” is key. He was never in the Cabinet.
was Secretary of the Navy a cabinet position? One for each branch?
At the time, yes - just the Army and the Navy. The Air Force was part of the Army until after WWII, at which time the service secretaries became sub-Cabinet posts, with the Secretary of Defense replacing them. But at no time was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy part of the Cabinet.
The difficulty being that the current Court is split 4-4. Thus her option would have to be to convince one of the conservative four that “advise and consent” means the Senate has to consent, within a certain time period. Or wait until one of them dies or retires. (And hope none of the liberals do the same.)
If she can do that, she’s golden - she can simply appoint Garland or some other liberal to the Court, just as she can appoint anyone she wants to her Cabinet.
I am not so sure that even Democrats in the Senate will be so willing to surrender their power to the Executive branch, even if it helps Hillary. Either out of simple desire to retain their power, or in anticipation of the time when the GOP regains the White House. I suspect even for Democrats, there might be more than a little concern for the checks and balances idea than can be swept away by a Democratic Presidential victory. I could be wrong about that.
Regards,
Shodan
Plus, the President can’t just “petition the Supreme Court” to decide the issue. The Court has a very limited original jurisdiction, which does not include resolving this type of dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Plus the dispute is already resolved. Unless the Senate is in recess, they have to confirm appointees or else they can’t serve. And they don’t have to act on nominees, even before Republicans started getting ridiculous there were some nominations that were held up for a long time, although usually the issue could be resolved by picking a more agreeable nominee.
Leaving all Cabinet members in place is one option, another is simply to let career bureaucrats be “acting” managers in charge of their departments.
This all seems very unlikely though. Republicans have given Obama’s nominees a hard time, but they have been confirmed. Clinton might want to tell current Cabinet members to hold off on resigning until a replacement is confirmed though. It may take some time as the Senate goes over every nominee in excruciating detail.
I’m sure the next Senate will be far more efficient at discharging their duties.
If Trump wins, the question of whether the Senate will confirm Clinton’s cabinet nominees can never arise. It can only arise if Clinton wins; therefore, it arises in a context where Trump has lost, and acting Trumpishly does not look like a good strategy.
As long as those duties don’t involve passing a transparent budget, and involve shutting down the minority entirely, and not letting bills come to a vote that have majority support because Chuck Schumer doesn’t like them, sure.
Not like your man McConnell, no … :rolleyes:
McConnell has actually restored regular Senate procedure, as promised.
[quote=“Shodan, post:25, topic:769059”]
The difficulty being that the current Court is split 4-4. Thus her option would have to be to convince one of the conservative four that “advise and consent” means the Senate has to consent, within a certain time period. Or wait until one of them dies or retires. (And hope none of the liberals do the same.) Quote]
I’m not so certain that ‘conservative’ judges would be sympathetic with the Senate Republicans.
When is the vote on Garland scheduled for?
White House website details 26 judges waiting, many for a year. I don’t find similar detail there for other appointments.
Problem is, that now *is *the “regular Senate procedure” **adaher **supports. For two more months, anyway.
That I don’t support, but they are allowing amendments from the minority and I’d hope Schumer continues with that. He’s not as ruthless as Reid.
One thing that must be kept in mind is that even if Hillary wins and the Dems retake the senate, they are virtually certain to lose it again in 2018, because the class of 2102 is coming up. Something like 25 Dems vs. 9 Reps. Not a good scene. Unless the electorate sees how badly the Reps have poisoned the well. Not likely and the party in power almost always loses in the off-year election.
I hope HRC has an amenable congress and gets everything done the first two years, coasts for two years and the Dems put up an even more attractive candidate in 2020.
And don’t forget that the States have the ultimate power in that if they feel that obstructionism is interfering with running the country they can demand an Article V convention to remove the “advise and consent” clause.