- Joined
- Apr 5, 2018
- Messages
- 10,728
- Reaction score
- 10,814
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.
Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.
I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.
One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.
Just a short wish list.
You aren't going to see any of those things and they exist for a reason. The same way Trump moves money around, Obama moved money around, Bush moved money around, Clinton moved money around.
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.
Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.
I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.
One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.
Just a short wish list.
Prove it. I think you just made that up.
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.
Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.
I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.
One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.
Just a short wish list.
I think this will have the opposite effect to what you want. If there is a default result (nominee gets position) when the senate fails to vote, and the majority wants that result, you've just given them a way to guarantee their choice of nominee without any input from the minority. That's just more incentive to deny a vote for purely partisan reasons. An alternative is that after the 60 days the minority gets to unilaterally accept or reject the nominee. This guarantees that the majority leader will always have an incentive to call an official vote before the deadline.First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.
I think this will have the opposite effect to what you want. If there is a default result (nominee gets position) when the senate fails to vote, and the majority wants that result, you've just given them a way to guarantee their choice of nominee without any input from the minority. That's just more incentive to deny a vote for purely partisan reasons. An alternative is that after the 60 days the minority gets to unilaterally accept or reject the nominee. This guarantees that the majority leader will always have an incentive to call an official vote before the deadline.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?