Trump demands Senate bypass votes to confirm appointees
This news was on Al Jazeera this morning. Since I NEVER accept Al Jazeera as a single source, I went looking for a more reliable one.
Le Monde is a very good, very reliable source.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
US President-elect Donald Trump demanded Sunday, November 10, that Republican lawmakers allow him to appoint key officials without a Senate confirmation vote, aiming to block the little remaining power Democrats have to stymie his administration.
Republican senators are in the process of picking their next leader, who will wield significant power come January after the party wrested back control of the upper chamber from Democrats - albeit with a narrow majority.
Under the US Constitution, the Senate must vote to approve nominations made by the president for senior executive positions, such as cabinet posts, and judicial appointments. A constitutional clause however allows for presidents to bypass a Senate vote if the chamber is in an extended recess. In a bid to maintain the legislative branch's power against the presidency, the Senate usually uses a parliamentary manoeuver to avoid ever entering a sufficiently long recess.
But Trump said Sunday on social media that "any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments."
"Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again," he said, referencing his first term in office.
The three senators seeking to become the Republican leader in the chamber all issued statements of varying levels of support for so-called recess appointments.
"100% agree. I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible," responded Rick Scott of Florida, who has won the backing of several close Trump allies, including billionaire Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
"We must act quickly and decisively to get the president's nominees in place as soon as possible, and all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments," added John Thune of South Dakota, currently the number two Senate Republican.
John Cornyn of Texas said "It is unacceptable for Senate Ds to blockade" Trump's cabinet appointments.
"If they do, we will stay in session, including weekends, until they relent. Additionally, the Constitution expressly confers the power on the President to make recess appointments," he added.
Trump also called for the Senate to halt any pending judicial nominations.
"No Judges should be approved during this period of time because the Democrats are looking to ram through their Judges as the Republicans fight over Leadership. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE," he said.
Democrats have narrowly controlled the Senate throughout President Joe Biden's term, during which they have pushed through hundreds of federal judges, seeking to offset a massive wave of conservatives installed by Trump during his first term. The next Senate will be sworn in in early January.
Whatever
Tags
Who is online
178 visitors
This is a standard bad-guy tactic: encourage/force others to do one's own dirty work. Months before taking office, the
President-electDictator-elect is encouraging/forcing others to subvert the Constitution.That was quick, wasn't it?
[deleted][✘]
Unless Rick Scott is a member, I wasn't taunting anyone.
damn flaggots
<cough>
Well, let me clean this Pepsi off the desk...
A constitutional clause however allows for presidents to bypass a Senate vote if the chamber is in an extended recess.
So, it is legal.
And there absolutely will be resistance from the democrats. I am all for it.
What Kyle Rittenhouse did was legal, too. The people he killed are "legally" dead.
Self-defense managed to remain legal.
The people he killed are "legally" dead.
Legally dead whites.
It's easy to defend killing, isn't it?
A lot easier than having to defend violent riots which left 2 dozen dead and features the likes of having people surrounded and trapped in burning buildings.
Protests, riots that gripped America in 2020 | Fox News
And your defense of that is?
Which one of those tried to overthrow the government?
On a side note about the Senate, it looks like we have an election denier. I wonder when the left wing media will start calling Schumer out for it s/
Schumer won't allow Dave McCormick at Senate orientation, citing outstanding PA ballots | Fox News
Good point. I have tried to get to the bottom of that story.
Something about Schumer's spokesperson said there are about 100,000 ballots not counted yet, but the AP, not exactly a right wing source, called the race three days ago.
Tomorrow will be a week since the elections. Why aren't ballots everywhere counted?
In France, all ballots are counted within two hours.
Of course, the French don't elect cops, judges, dog-catchers, ...
So, it's not illegal?
You didnt need Le Monde, Trump tweeted all this out himself on his Truth Social site.
He wants the manhood of all potential objectors in his own party. And of course they are all now falling in line.
I find it "interesting" that foreign media are headlining this news, while US media hesitate. That doesn't bode well.
Because they know it's irrelevant BS.
So it starts, and the spineless Republican Senators will fold like a wet paper bag.
Elise Stefanik will be the US ambassador to the United Nations , it was announced this morning.
She earned it, but I wouldn't take anyone holding a seat in congress.
If you bow deep enough toward Trump he may throw you a bone.
Good, that means she won't be my representative anymore.
You're far too optimist.
The
RepublicanFascist Party is primed and ready. They are perfectly willing to subvert the Constitution. They have been working towards this for years.The only question is how fast they'll move.
They haven't and they won't, and you can't prove otherwise.
Project 2025
[✘]
A mistake if the Republicans follow through with it, but entirely predictable if you understand game theory. Ever since Democrats decided to abuse the filibuster to stop Bush's judicial nominees because the pride of Illinois Dick Durbin didn't want Bush to appoint a Hispanic to the appellate court, there's been an erosion of norms. The Republicans caved to the democrats with the Gang of 7, and then the Dems turned around and nuked the filibuster anyway when it benefited them.
Last time Trump was elected, dozens of Republican Senators joined with Democrats to ensure the filibuster remained. Than as soon as the Democrats had a slim majority, they all voted to get rid of the filibuster except for the heroic two of Manchin and Synema, who paid the political price for it. The Democrats have made the rules clear, act when you can because if you don't they will when they can. So if Democrats are going to try and obstruct every nominee again, you can see why some Republicans want to play by Democratic rules and just take the easy way out.
Ah, Sean... So many useless words.
Ah, Bob .... He knows a lot more than the one word we keep hearing from others, which is "Fascist!"
I shouldn't have said "useless". I should have said "pointless".
Curiouser and curiouser, this persistence in dissembling.
It's not an argument I can distill to a sentence clause, so it's out of the reach of some.
There is a lot you shouldn't have said but please continue.
whazzat
there's a difference?
Well done!
That is for our readers, and I hope they get it.
Democratic Principles in operation:
Q: How do you square your support for axing the filibuster when it will now likely be what protects some of Biden's key investments?
Jayapal: "Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the [GOP] has the trifecta? No. But had we had the trifecta, I would have been."
As Vic has pointed out, this doesn't matter, all that matters is, "is it illegal?"
Right. Democrats have no principles. Glad we agree.
Doesn't matter, all that matters is it legal or not.