She was not a member of his cabinet. The AG that would be a member of his cabinet will be confirmed in a few days.
She was the Acting U.S. Attorney General, as was therefore technically a member of the U.S. cabinet. I would say this counts as a firing of a member of the cabinet.
Not Trump’s cabinet, no.
US Presidents can choose their own cabinets. She was not chosen by Trump, thus was not a member of his cabinet.
She was a holdover from the Obama Administration who Trump chose to keep on after Lorretta Lynch left when her term expired.
She’s all his. Or was.
Exactly. Yates was actually asked by the Trump administration to serve as Acting A.G. until Sessions was confirmed:
As the Acting A.G., she was therefore the head of the US DOJ, and therefore a member of Trump’s cabinet.
You can think so, if it makes you feel better. But no, she wasn’t. Neither is whoever is acting head of the Dept. of State.
Around here, it generally does make us feel better to use words in their well-known and commonly accepted meanings:
Yates was appointed acting Attorney General by the Trump Administration, and therefore she was an acting member of the Cabinet under Trump. She was not (and never stood a chance of being) one of Trump’s Cabinet nominees, but she most certainly was a member of the Cabinet.
If you want to clarify that distinction as regards the OP’s thread topic, you need to explicitly point out the asymmetry of comparing Yates’ case with previous firings of nominated and confirmed Cabinet appointees. Not just keep repeating, incorrectly, that acting Cabinet members are not members of the Cabinet, which they are.
She was appointed by Barack Obama, in January 2015. Her “acting Attorney General” role was not an “appointment”. If it was, it would have had, as per the Constitution, to go through the Senate again.
Appointment to one post does not carry over to another. Otherwise, Trump could just move the federal judge to the Supreme Court, arguing that he’s already appointed and confirmed.
Yes, the Acting Heads are considered members of the Cabinet. Dana Boente is currently the Acting Attorney General, and a member of the Cabinet until Sessions is confirmed.
From your article: “All Cabinet members are nominated by the President and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority.”
And really, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
It’s better than any citation you’ve provided, which is exactly none.
I provided yours: “All Cabinet members are nominated by the President and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority.”
Do you accept your own citation?
“The Petticoat Affair” of the Jackson administration takes the cake as far as cabinet resignations and subsequent impact on national politics. The Secretary of War John Eatin married a widow with a dubious past by high society standards who add a sharp tongue. Remembering the accusations that Rachel Jackson was a bigamist in marrying Andrew before her divorce was final, President Jackson took the Eaton’s side against the cabinet wives, led by Vice President Calhoun wife who refused to socialize with the Eatons. Martin Van Buren, a widower, was free to support the Eaton since he couldn’t be nagged about it at home. Ultimately Calhoun and most of the cabinet resigned, with Calhoun becoming a regional figure instead of a national one. Van Buren became Jackson’s successor but since the Panic of 1837 hit early in his administration, that may not have been a good thing for him.
Did you seriously not even read the description I cited in the post you replied to?
Trump appointed Yates as acting AG. He did not, as you rightly state though with a fuzzy grasp of the multiple meanings of the word “appoint” in this context, appoint Yates as AG in the sense of nominating her for Senate confirmation of her appointment.
Appointment as an acting Cabinet member is not the same thing as appointment as a regular Cabinet member. But both acting and regular Cabinet members are members of the Cabinet.
She is an acting AG. He appointed her as an acting AG. But an “acting” AG is not a member of the Cabinet. Because, as Colibri so helpfully provided, “all Cabinet members are nominated by the President and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority.”
If the cabinet had met, would she have attended? If the cabinet meets, prior to senate approval, who does attend? Government of the US does not cease during the handover phase. There are statutory positions that have roles that need to be fulfilled. If this was not an issue there would be no need to ask people to fill acting roles.
This is duck rules. If she has the legal authority to control the DOJ (and other responsibilities) she is AG. No iffs, no buts. She is AG. This isn’t a chair warming position. Until the senate confirmes a new permanent appointment, the person in the acting role is legally the person occupying that position. Given the current politics playing out, it could be months before the new AG is confirmed. The country needs running. If POTUS calls a cabinet meeting, everyone in the cabinet turns up. Including those that are in acting roles. The acting members turn up, not the yet to be confirmed nominated members.
Considering the length of time between election and taking the post, why is it that a US President does not have a full team, ready to go, on Jan 20th?
In the UK, an incoming PM appoints the key members of their cabinet the day after the election.
Because they are subject to senate confirmation. More interestingly, nobody can be appointed by the president to an acting position if they are then nominated to the senate for confirmation as the substantive appointee. Keeping the previous incumbent of the position in place clearly simplifies things. They are really only acting in the sense that they will be replaced by whichever nominee of POTUS the senate finally accepts. They have actually been nominated and accepted by the senate. Just possibly under a different regime. “Interim” would be a better word than “acting.”
The nitpick is that the UK PM does not appoint ministers. The PM recommends to the monarch those members of parliament that should be appointed as ministers. There is every chance that some desired cabinet ministers didn’t get re-elected. They can’t be appointed in the UK. Under a Westminster system all ministers, including the PM, are appointed by the monarch or the monarch’s representative.
The US executive is composed of people who are not members of the legislature. In principle there is a critical difference. Westminster system ministers are elected representatives of the people. In the US, they can be any bozo the POTUS nominates. The elected representatives of the people in the form of the senate feel the need to vet them. Of course IRL, things get a bit more messy.
not true, cabinet members can come from the Lords or hold no legislative position at all.
Peter Mandelson was brought into the Brown cabinet when he was no longer an MP or a peer.
You could theoretically make anyone a peer and then appoint them to a cabinet position.
Rare, but possible.
(Bolding mine)
I don’t know whether this is a poor choice of words or whether it warrants a well-deserved golf-clap! 