This is an underused topic I 'd like to learn about.
How would you fix the senate confirmation process?
Just curious
Are you looking for how, or why?
Either way, it’s not really a topic for GQ.
Moved from General Questions to IMHO.
samclem, mmoderator
I think the OP needs to identify what problem he sees in the process, before we can talk about remedies.
“From the day a president announces a confirmation appointment, the Senate shall have 60 calendar days to offer advice and hold a roll call vote for confirmation. If the Senate fails to hold a roll call vote within the specified calendar day limit, the confirmation appointment will be resolved in the affirmative for the president as though the Senate had formally confirmed the appointment by a roll call vote.”
Otherwise known as the Shit or Get Off the Pot Senate Rule for Confirmation Appointments.
I’d add a time limit. If 30 or 60 days or whatever elapses without a majority vote against the nominee, that’s a confirmation.
AND ten randomly-determined Senators get tasered.
More simply, amend the Senate rules so that you can’t filibuster nominees, or put a hold on their nominations (for nominations only, not laws). Both parties are going to end up with people they don’t like, but in the long run it’s fair to both.
Our system of government is deliberately designed to have these slowdowns, so one party can’t take power and make sweeping immediate changes while the other side sits powerless.
There’s nothing wrong with the confirmation process if you’re a Jefferonian. 
How about this: there is absolutely NO good reason for confirmation hearings. The Senators who vote have (or can easily get) all the information they need to determine whether the nominee is qualified for the post he/she is appointed to. Hearings are nothing more than televised soap operas, and the interrogations are either pointless or “gotcha” games.
Skip the hearings, and just let the Senators vote. Preferably in closed chambers. They can make their arguments and do their horse trading just fine with no cameras present.
Sounds like a plan. I’ve never in my life received any worthwhile information from watching a confirmation hearing. Everything about these people are known already and all that they need is a vote.
You show me where this was designed into the constitution. After all, the president cannot just sit on a bill, refusing to either sign it or veto it. I don’t think anyone ever anticipated this filibustering of appointments. Nor has it been done much until now. For example, Bork was voted down.
If I were a Senator, and had real concerns about the character or suitability of a nominee, I would want the chance to question them directly. Perhaps what I’ve heard is wrong or incomplete. Or perhaps the concern is well-founded, and I would want that shown openly, for my colleagues as well as myself. Either way, voting down a President’s nominee is serious, and merits time on the floor.
Or, if the time limit expires without a majority vote in favor, that’s a rejection.
I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the “consent” of the Senate.
Oh, I think requiring the consent of the Senate requires it to vote in favor of the nominee. But I think the Senate is a spoiled naughty child that ought to have its privileges modified so as to insulate others from its spoiled naughtiness.
An automatic rejection would be even more dysfunctional. It would give the minority a big huge incentive to block a vote for just a few weeks, knowing that just a little bit of sand in the gears will reap huge rewards. They need to be told that if they give up their slim chance of getting their way with voting, they will face certain loss.
There are two different types of offices that the Senate advises and consents on.
One is for executive and regulatory positions. These positions last only until the current President leaves office (executive) or for a term of years (regulatory). These people comprise part of the President’s team, so to speak.
The other is for the Federal courts. These are lifetime appointments, and are supposed to be independent.
For the executive and regulatory positions, I’d support (a) a major reduction of the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation (limit it to 200, and let the Senate decide which 200 they’re going to be), and (b) once 60 days has passed since the nomination was presented to the Senate by a President or President-elect, consent is assumed absent a majority vote rejecting the nominee.
I’m not sure what I’d do about judicial nominations. IMHO, there should be more latitude for a minority to block a bad nominee in the case of judicial nominations (Janice Rogers Brown, anyone?) than with executive nominations, but without giving them the ability (that they have now) to block all the President’s judicial nominations. I just don’t have any bright ideas for a way to strike that balance.
There are no balances when one side is insane. Our laws were created mostly because people thought the legislators of the future would, in the end, respect the office and minority votes for most issues, and only use extraordinary measures in extreme circumstances. With the likes of the Tea Baggers in office, every issue is extreme, every opposing idea is radical, and every dissent is elevated to a battle between virtue and apocalypse. In this kind of environment when people refuse to compromise, there is little recourse except to get rid of the idiots and take away their power