I mean, it’s a Pub-controlled Senate. Shouldn’t he have an easy time getting his nominees confirmed?
Confirmation hearings can be inconvenient; the opposition gets to ask questions.
Came here to say that.
This is like asking why so few people show up to Milli Vanilli concerts.
As in so may cases, there’s a Wikipedia page for that. It shows the surprising (or maybe not so surprising) number of people whom Trump has nominated for posts who have either been rejected by the Senate, or voluntarily withdrawn from consideration.
As already alluded to, formal nominees are subject to scrutiny. Quite a few of his nominees have not stood up to scrutiny. So, putting someone “acting” into the post bypasses the formal part of the scrutiny.
What is the debate here?
Also Trump just doesn’t really care about actually running the government. He’s just pretending to be president.
From here:
Like I said, Trump is pretending to be president–he’s acting, and he wants his administration to be “acting,” too. How many times has he talked about “central casting” when referring to his choices for staff?
All he ever does is put on a dog-and-pony show–a performance. He’s a fake president, in a very real office.
Moving from GD to IMHO for lack of item to debate.
[/moderating]
I’ve also heard it said that Trump likes acting officials because he thinks they will feel less secure in their positions, and therefore more eager to please/do Trump’s bidding.
Partially its the fact that finding people who are
- competent enough to pass confirmation
but - Willing to risk their good name working for an administration that will ignore their advice and throw them under a bus when things inevitably go pear shaped.
is relatively small
Related to that is the extremely high turnover rate which leads to cascading open positions. Somebody at the top gets axed for being insufficiently willing to put loyalty to Trump over loyalty to the country. The person below him is promoted to fill his position in an acting capacity, resulting in that persons position being vacant. Which gets filled in an acting capacity by the person below him, which leaves his position vacant, etc. etc.
And those acting officials promoted from within the agency’s career regulars are entitled to their permanent job or something equivalent back, so you don’t even fill out all the posts not requiring confirmation, to have somewhere to return the actings. Also, since some years ago the Congress figured a way to block “recess appointments” by remaining in pro-forma permament session, designees cannot take over running the offices pending confirmation.
(So you have cases like the president’s nominee for permanent boss at FEMA, Byard, remaining a subordinate of acting administrator Gaynor, with no real deadline.)
It’s “Apprentice: Seasons 2016-2020”.
So, once the Democrats manage to get control of the presidency and both houses of Congress (hah!), what kind of laws could they enact that would prevent abuse of “acting” appointments in the future?
In legislative terms that would be very simple, and present no constitutional issues.
I don’t know about no constitutional issues. Congress can’t make the President appoint people. A President who wants to be a jerk could just stop making appointments at all. What Congress could do is say “make appointments right now or we will impeach you for dereliction of duty.” But they won’t do that.
But there are things they can do. Appointed positions and their order of succession (who becomes Acting Whatever during a vacancy) are determined by statute. Congress could reform this system so that Acting Whatevers are chosen from career civil service ranks rather than subordinate political appointees. That would give the president less control over the acting officers; they could be removed from their positions but not fired. They would just go back to their old job in the civil service. And there’s a reasonable chance that they would actually be competent at the job.
I think we do need a Constitutional amendment to fix what Moscow Mitch managed to destroy in the existing appointment process: the assumption that if an appointment is made that the Senate would actually do their job and vote. So my proposed amendment is: if Congress is in session and the President makes an appointment requiring the Senate’s approval, then the Senate must either confirm or reject the nominee within 60 days, or their assent is assumed and the nominee is sworn in.
And easier to fire. To echo this comment, since HE appointed them without any Congressional blessing presumably they will feel loyal to him personally.
Let’s face it, thump would like to get rid of Congress AND the Supreme Court and just be Emperor. For life.