In general, the Senate should rubberstamp most nominees that will only last the duration of the president's tenure. Beyond confirming that the nominee isn't a reprobate and has a working knowledge of the agency where they will server, the Senate should approve. The current circus atmosphere which dates back to the 80s has surely led a lot of talented people to avoid government service and the current sad state of affairs shows how well that has worked. On the other hand, when a nominee is going to outlast the president, the Senate should be much more discerning. Judicial nominees should get the hairy eyeball treatment.
With that in mind, I have no qualms about the filibuster being nixed for administration appointees but think it should be in full force for all lifetime appointments or nominees who will outlast the president's term. In that formulation, it would only take 50 + the VP to confirm all the members of the administration but it would take 60 to confirm judges, the FBI Director, the Federal Reserve Chair, etc. Sadly, it is unlikely that such will be the case any time soon. Neither party trusts the other to respect such a rule and so dare not surrender power that the other would simply retake.
With that in mind, I have no qualms about the filibuster being nixed for administration appointees but think it should be in full force for all lifetime appointments or nominees who will outlast the president's term. In that formulation, it would only take 50 + the VP to confirm all the members of the administration but it would take 60 to confirm judges, the FBI Director, the Federal Reserve Chair, etc. Sadly, it is unlikely that such will be the case any time soon. Neither party trusts the other to respect such a rule and so dare not surrender power that the other would simply retake.
No comments:
Post a Comment