# Will ALL Cabinet Confirmations Be Contentious From Now On? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 8, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139 "2017-05-08T17:32:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/1 "2017-05-08T17:32:21Z")
For most of US history, the Senate rubber stamped both Cabinet nominees and Supreme Court nominees. We all know that Supreme Court justices will never be rubber stamped again. The majority of Democrats will vote against ANY conservative, no matter how well qualified. For a few decades, Republicans were willing to confirm liberal appointees (Ginsburg was confirmed with almost no objections from Republicans), but that’s over, too. We now expect a big battle over every Supreme Court nominee. My question is… will it be that way with all Cabinet nominees from now on? MOST Democrats have opposed most of Trump’s Cabinet nominees. Yeah yeah yeah, I know, Democrats will claim that Trump is different, that HIS nominees are uniquely objectionable, that “normal” conservative nominees to the Cabinet won’t get the same treatment. But I’m not sure I buy it. I suspect that the treatment Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos and Friends got is the New Normal. I believe EVERY Republican Cabinet nominee will get the third degree from now on, and that NONE will ever again get a majority of Democrat Senators. Republican Senators will take a little longer to figure out the new ground rules, but will eventually retaliate in kind. What say? Am I imagining things? Is Trump an outlier or is the 2016 confirmation process the start of a permanent change? ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/2 "2017-05-08T17:37:03Z")
I think many of Trump’s cabinet picks are special cases. Cabinet secretaries are supposed to be experts in the fields of their departments. Carson and DeVos have never worked a day in a position related to the departments they run. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/3 "2017-05-08T17:42:13Z")
If both parties go back to candidates that are in the middle but slightly left/right, it might not be such a problem. The problem with several of Trump’s nominees was that they are hostile to the goal of the agency they were nominated for. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/4 "2017-05-08T17:43:21Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > . Carson and DeVos have never worked a day in a position related to the departments they run. What about Trump??? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/5 "2017-05-08T17:43:28Z")
Eight of Trump’s cabinet appointees got more than 80 votes. One way to explain that is that they were the ones qualified for their positions. By contrast, Devos, Sessions, Price, Pruitt, Tillerson, et al. were not qualified. What’s the alternative explanation, according to your theory? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/6 "2017-05-08T17:43:33Z")
Collegiality is dead, and good riddance. The parties aren’t equal, and their sins aren’t equal. And going all out against a President can be good politics, as Mitch McConnell found out in 2016. I see no benefit at all to Democrats for being any kinder to Trump than McConnell was to Obama, barring a tectonic shift in Trump’s policy and rhetoric. The few reasonable nominees can be considered reasonably, and the rest should be opposed. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/7 "2017-05-08T18:29:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Collegiality is dead, and good riddance. The parties aren’t equal, and their sins aren’t equal. And going all out against a President can be good politics, as Mitch McConnell found out in 2016. I see no benefit at all to Democrats for being any kinder to Trump than McConnell was to Obama, barring a tectonic shift in Trump’s policy and rhetoric. The few reasonable nominees can be considered reasonably, and the rest should be opposed. Voila. If the next Republican President is a Romney or a Jeb, this is the reaction his nominees can expect. Trump ISN’T special. The Democrats are now in permanent “No More Mr. Nice Guy” mode. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/8 "2017-05-08T18:40:03Z")
And if the next President is a Democrat, this is also the reaction his/her/its nominees can expect. Except it will be inexcusable obstructionism. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/9 "2017-05-08T18:46:29Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Voila. > > If the next Republican President is a Romney or a Jeb, this is the reaction his nominees can expect. Trump ISN’T special. The Democrats are now in permanent “No More Mr. Nice Guy” mode. I’m not sure about Trump not being special, but the Democrats shouldn’t be any “nicer” than the Republicans have been. There’s no benefit to it, politically speaking. Winning elections (IMO) is more about motivating one’s supporters to actually vote than appealing to moderates or the other side. > [@Shodan](#): > > And if the next President is a Democrat, this is also the reaction his/her/its nominees can expect. Except it will be inexcusable obstructionism. > > Regards, > Shodan Yes. This will happen regardless of what the Democrats do, IMO, therefore they might as well respond in kind. There’s no political benefit to playing nice at this time. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/10 "2017-05-08T18:56:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And if the next President is a Democrat, this is also the reaction his/her/its nominees can expect. Except it will be inexcusable obstructionism. If the Democrats do the opposite-hire those who are qualified to do the job they are nominated for and who show an interest in actually doing what the job description calls for-then opposing them for that reason _will_ be inexcusable obstructionism. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/11 "2017-05-08T19:13:22Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Eight of Trump’s cabinet appointees got more than 80 votes. > > One way to explain that is that they were the ones qualified for their positions. By contrast, Devos, Sessions, Price, Pruitt, Tillerson, et al. were not qualified. > > What’s the alternative explanation, according to your theory? This really bears repeating. Here are [the actual numbers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump#Confirmation_process_timeline), courtesy of Wikipedia (scroll down a bit to see a handy table). David Shulkin at Veterans Affairs was confirmed by the Senate with _100 votes_ (granted, he was a holdover from the Obama Administration, where he had been an Under Secretary in the department), but James “Mad Dog” Mattis at Defense got 98 votes (and only one vote against\*); Elaine Chao at Transportation got 93 votes; Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador (a “Cabinet-level position”) got 96 votes. Other appointees ranged from 60+ votes, up through the 70s and 80s, and on down to Betsy DeVos, who needed Mike Pence to put her over the finish line. (And some Trump appointees have had to withdraw from consideration rather than be actually rejected by the Senate.) \*IIRC, this was less a matter of personally objecting to General Mattis himself, and more that that Senator didn’t want to vote for a waiver to allow a recently-serving general to assume the civilian position of Defense Secretary as a matter of principle. Really, **astorian** , you’ve indicated you’re a Never-Trumper Republican, but several times lately it seems like you’ve been grasping at straws to try to prove some sort of moral equivalence between the Democrats and the Republicans, or that there’s some sort of Trump Derangement Syndrome instead of justified and healthy opposition to a dangerously demagogic and incompetent narcissist in the White House. ([Serious Question: Wouldn’t President Rubio or President Kasich Get the Same Treatment as Trump?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823090); [The Alt-Right is Abandonign Trump, and the Left Will Soon Give Him “Strange New Respect”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823484).) The answer is _still_ No, Trump Is Not Normal. And yes, it was the Republican Party which put him in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/12 "2017-05-08T19:16:16Z")
The Trump administration isn’t failing because of obstructionism. They’re failing due to their own incompetence. On this specific issue, the reason why Trump appointees aren’t being confirmed is because the administration isn’t submitted nominees. Here’s the breakdown on the top five hundred appointed positions at the hundred day marks for the last five Presidents: Bush - 94 nominations; 50 confirmations (53%); 1 rejection Clinton - 174 nominations; 49 confirmations (28%); 2 rejections Bush II - 85 nominations; 35 confirmations (41%); 0 rejections Obama - 187 nominations; 69 confirmations (37%); 3 rejections Trump - 68 nominations; 27 confirmations (40%); 3 rejections ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/13 "2017-05-08T21:51:29Z")
This thread is absolutely fucking hilarious. The obstructionist assholes who refused to even vote on Merrick Garland are crying about the mean democrats? Could the republicans be any more dysfunctional? Are they even capable of doing actual work? They own the government and are just now discovering that not only do they not believe in anything, but they also don’t have a clue how to _accomplish_ anything. I’d actually be sad if this was about a retarded child. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/14 "2017-05-08T22:50:05Z")
Of course Trump is different. His cabinet picks are objectively worse. Many jobs don’t really need to be all that political, but they do need to have people who are competent enough to do them. Only if Republicans continue to follow Trump’s lead will they get the same results. If they nominate the way they did in the past, they’ll mostly get the results they got in the past. Except one caveat. Trump has tainted the party. Approving Trump’s picks has tainted the party. So Democrats have every reason to be more wary in the future. Republicans either put Party before Country, were okay with incompetence/evil, or were profoundly ignorant (which is a significant problem due to fake news). There’s less reason to trust they are dealing honestly. But don’t try to pin that on the Democrats doing anything wrong. They should be more wary. If anything, given their track record, they’ll be too forgiving and we’ll have to deal with this again in 12 years. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/15 "2017-05-08T23:00:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If the Democrats do the opposite-hire those who are qualified to do the job they are nominated for and who show an interest in actually doing what the job description calls for-then opposing them for that reason _will_ be inexcusable obstructionism. Do you consider Gorsuch “qualified to do the job”? Was the opposition to him “inexcusable obstructionism”? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/16 "2017-05-08T23:08:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you consider Gorsuch “qualified to do the job”? Was the opposition to him “inexcusable obstructionism”? I think you owe the class the answer to the same questions about Garland before you are owed an answer to these. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/17 "2017-05-08T23:20:03Z")
One thing is certain: if, perchance, the Dems were to take over the Senate in 2018 (yeah, I know how unlikely that seems, but the Reps are doing their damndest to dig themselves into a hole), Trump can forget about making any Supreme Court nominations. Unless he were to appoint Garland. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/18 "2017-05-08T23:40:29Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > One thing is certain: if, perchance, the Dems were to take over the Senate in 2018 (yeah, I know how unlikely that seems, but the Reps are doing their damndest to dig themselves into a hole), Trump can forget about making any Supreme Court nominations. Unless he were to appoint Garland. I think the norm going forward will be that a Presidents’ SCOTUS nominees are only approved when his party controls the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/19 "2017-05-08T23:48:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think the norm going forward will be that a Presidents’ SCOTUS nominees are only approved when his party controls the Senate. Yes. And I’ve been suggesting lately that this could lead to a national crisis – if one party happens to get “lucky” and swing the court one way or the other with a large majority of the 9 seats, angry members of the “losing” side might take to the streets. For the good of the country, we need to de-escalate SCOTUS battles, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139/20 "2017-05-09T00:01:09Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > One thing is certain: if, perchance, the Dems were to take over the Senate in 2018 (yeah, I know how unlikely that seems, but the Reps are doing their damndest to dig themselves into a hole), Trump can forget about making any Supreme Court nominations. Unless he were to appoint Garland. Heck, no. Garland was the compromise the Republicans suggested Obama offer them. Which they then refused to accept. If the Democrats take over Congress, Trump’s going to have to nominate a genuine Democrat not a moderate Republican if he wants to have any chance of getting his nominee confirmed. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-all-cabinet-confirmations-be-contentious-from-now-on/786139.md?page=2)