Mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees? (1 Viewer)

[Roadvirus]

A set of mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees to meet before they are granted a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Obviously some of the requirements would have to be customized to fit a specific Cabinet position (i.e. "not a member or/friends with members of the FSB/CCP" for Homeland Security Sec. or "actually graduated from medical school" for HHS Sec. and no Timothy Leary fan club members for the DEA), but they would also all have standard requirements, such as "Passed a rigorous Federal background check" & has an IQ above the average human body temperature.

No more of this horse crap where career CTers who act like they ate lead paint chip sandwiches when they were kids being put in charge of Health & Human Services.

I say Yes. What say the rest of you?

 

[Callen]

Yes. Enough of these "DEI" hires. Competency and experience matters.

 

[Peter]

Not being able to hire family members would be a nice start.

 

[Goshin]

Complex matter to nail down as you alluded. In theory the Senate confirmation is supposed to weed out the meatheads. In theory.

 

[Loulit01]

Still shocked anyone thought RFKrazy could be HHS secretary. Seriously, of every viable candidate for the office he was the worst possible choice. He wasn't even a viable candidate. Amazing.

 

[Rexedgar]

Complex matter to nail down as you alluded. In theory the Senate confirmation is supposed to weed out the meatheads. In theory.

Meatheads won’t weed out meatheads.

 

[Loulit01]

If anyone's read Asimov's Foundation series, Trump strikes me as The Mule. A person with an unnatural talent to influence others that no plan, or strategy, or system accounted for. A person who throws everything into chaos and no one quite knows what to do about it.

 

[longview]

If anyone's read Asimov's Foundation series, Trump strikes me as The Mule. A person with an unnatural talent to influence others that no plan, or strategy, or system accounted for. A person who throws everything into chaos and no one quite knows what to do about it.

I agree, and have said as much. the system cannot account for Trump and how he reacts.
That is not saying Trump is good or bad, just not predictable.

 

[aociswundumho]

A set of mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees to meet before they are granted a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

1) It's unconstitutional. The appointments clause gives Trump the power to nominate and the senate the power to confirm. Imposing preconditions before a hearing adds an extra filter not authorized by the constitution.

2) It's not needed. Senators already have the power to grill nominees on their qualifications or to simply vote no.

 

[Napoleon]

A set of mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees to meet before they are granted a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Obviously some of the requirements would have to be customized to fit a specific Cabinet position (i.e. "not a member or/friends with members of the FSB/CCP" for Homeland Security Sec. or "actually graduated from medical school" for HHS Sec. and no Timothy Leary fan club members for the DEA), but they would also all have standard requirements, such as "Passed a rigorous Federal background check" & has an IQ above the average human body temperature.

No more of this horse crap where career CTers who act like they ate lead paint chip sandwiches when they were kids being put in charge of Health & Human Services.

I say Yes. What say the rest of you?

I want understand your ideal end state. Is all of that still being decided by people who are only qualified in taking up oxygen?

 

[noonereal]

A set of mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees to meet before they are granted a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Obviously some of the requirements would have to be customized to fit a specific Cabinet position (i.e. "not a member or/friends with members of the FSB/CCP" for Homeland Security Sec. or "actually graduated from medical school" for HHS Sec. and no Timothy Leary fan club members for the DEA), but they would also all have standard requirements, such as "Passed a rigorous Federal background check" & has an IQ above the average human body temperature.

No more of this horse crap where career CTers who act like they ate lead paint chip sandwiches when they were kids being put in charge of Health & Human Services.

I say Yes. What say the rest of you?

We need to turn norms into laws post Trump.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

A set of mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees to meet before they are granted a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Obviously some of the requirements would have to be customized to fit a specific Cabinet position (i.e. "not a member or/friends with members of the FSB/CCP" for Homeland Security Sec. or "actually graduated from medical school" for HHS Sec. and no Timothy Leary fan club members for the DEA), but they would also all have standard requirements, such as "Passed a rigorous Federal background check" & has an IQ above the average human body temperature.

No more of this horse crap where career CTers who act like they ate lead paint chip sandwiches when they were kids being put in charge of Health & Human Services.

I say Yes. What say the rest of you?

Hi Roadvirus,

That's a no-brainer. Of course there should be requirements. And they should be mandatory, and they should be met. And they should apply to every position available to elected officials as well. Even the president. And I think since they serve as an example to society, we should actually hold them to a higher standard. DUI or other small crimes should not be acceptable. And there is a host of other things that could and should be added to this list.

The bottom line is that, as it stands, an employer has stricter selection criteria for a cleaning lady than you have for your president. Don't you think that is at least a little odd?

Joey

 

[Loulit01]

1) It's unconstitutional. The appointments clause gives Trump the power to nominate and the senate the power to confirm. Imposing preconditions before a hearing adds an extra filter not authorized by the constitution.

2) It's not needed. Senators already have the power to grill nominees on their qualifications or to simply vote no.

And yet we have Gabbard, Hegseth, Zeldin, and RFKrazy. The system is a catastrophic fail.

 

[aociswundumho]

And yet we have Gabbard, Hegseth, Zeldin, and RFKrazy. The system is a catastrophic fail.

Yes, democracy is one big fail. You're just discovering this now?

 

[Gatsby]

A set of mandatory requirements for Cabinet-level nominees to meet before they are granted a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Obviously some of the requirements would have to be customized to fit a specific Cabinet position (i.e. "not a member or/friends with members of the FSB/CCP" for Homeland Security Sec. or "actually graduated from medical school" for HHS Sec. and no Timothy Leary fan club members for the DEA), but they would also all have standard requirements, such as "Passed a rigorous Federal background check" & has an IQ above the average human body temperature.

No more of this horse crap where career CTers who act like they ate lead paint chip sandwiches when they were kids being put in charge of Health & Human Services.

I say Yes. What say the rest of you?

I mean...America elected a president and 100 senators to make those determinations. Elections have consequences. If the voters are dissatisfied with the results, they can elect someone else. There's no reason to codify a set of requirements that may not always be applicable.

 

[Roadvirus]

Complex matter to nail down as you alluded. In theory the Senate confirmation is supposed to weed out the meatheads. In theory.

Still shocked anyone thought RFKrazy could be HHS secretary. Seriously, of every viable candidate for the office he was the worst possible choice. He wasn't even a viable candidate. Amazing.

I would've bet everything i had in the bank that the Senate...including GOPers...would've sent Kennedy packing, enveloped in a cloud of humiliation for even thinking he'd be a good HHS Sec.

And yet, here we are months later....stuck with a CTer with mush & worms for brains screwing up the one department that is responsible for our health & future epi/pan-demic responses.

 

[Roadvirus]

1) It's unconstitutional. The appointments clause gives Trump the power to nominate and the senate the power to confirm. Imposing preconditions before a hearing adds an extra filter not authorized by the constitution.

The men & women in charge of these departments cannot be trusted if they are compromised or lack experience in the department they are nominated to.

2) It's not needed. Senators already have the power to grill nominees on their qualifications or to simply vote no.

With RFK CTer, the Senate failed miserably in that duty. As a check against incompetence, they failed. It's obvious they cannot be trusted alone to ensure the country is manned by the right people for whatever job they are selected for.

 

[Roadvirus]

We need to turn norms into laws post Trump.

Congress is going to have to do a lot of codifying of things & tweaking of various Prez powers once he goes.

The Founders assumed someone like Trump would never happen. They had good vision when they put the Constitution together and they covered most of the complex "What Ifs". A pity they didn't have a crystal ball.

 

[aociswundumho]

The men & women in charge of these departments cannot be trusted if they are compromised or lack experience in the department they are nominated to.

With RFK CTer, the Senate failed miserably in that duty. As a check against incompetence, they failed. It's obvious they cannot be trusted alone to ensure the country is manned by the right people for whatever job they are selected for.

Yes, government is filled with idiots and they screw up even simple things.

You're a conservative, did you really need me to tell you that?

 

[Roadvirus]

Hi Roadvirus,

That's a no-brainer. Of course there should be requirements. And they should be mandatory, and they should be met. And they should apply to every position available to elected officials as well. Even the president. And I think since they serve as an example to society, we should actually hold them to a higher standard. DUI or other small crimes should not be acceptable. And there is a host of other things that could and should be added to this list.

The bottom line is that, as it stands, an employer has stricter selection criteria for a cleaning lady than you have for your president. Don't you think that is at least a little odd?

Joey

I think there should be some leeway when it comes to DUIs. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. No one should be punished for one or two small indiscretions done in the past where no one got hurt, nothing was damaged/destroyed & the only punishment was a temporarily seized driver's license.

It's when someone makes it a habit, leaving a years-long record of such thing and/or has injured/killed someone and/or damaged/destroyed something while drinking their breakfast/lunch/dinner & driving is where such a person should be dismissed as a potential nominee for a Federal job of this type.

 

[Eriech]

Congress is going to have to do a lot of codifying of things & tweaking of various Prez powers once he goes.

The Founders assumed someone like Trump would never happen. They had good vision when they put the Constitution together and they covered most of the complex "What Ifs". A pity they didn't have a crystal ball.

Trump is exactly who the founders envisioned. Not a person who made politics a career path where election to higher and higher office with the presidency the natural culmination after decades sequestered inside the beltway.

 

[Roadvirus]

Trump is exactly who the founders envisioned. Not a person who made politics a career path where election to higher and higher office with the presidency the natural culmination after decades sequestered inside the beltway.

At this point, a career politician would be better then a failed businessman/reality TV star.

 

[noonereal]

Congress is going to have to do a lot of codifying of things & tweaking of various Prez powers once he goes.

The Founders assumed someone like Trump would never happen. They had good vision when they put the Constitution together and they covered most of the complex "What Ifs". A pity they didn't have a crystal ball.

QFT