|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 3, 2017 13:02:10 GMT -5
Here are the eight Trump Cabinet picks Democrats plan to targetwww.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/01/here-are-the-8-trump-cabinet-picks-democrats-plan-to-target/?utm_term=.28cc8521abc4Democratic senators plan to aggressively target eight of Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees in the coming weeks and are pushing to stretch their confirmation votes into March — an unprecedented break with Senate tradition.
Such delays would upend Republican hopes of quickly holding hearings and confirming most of Trump’s top picks on Inauguration Day. But Democrats, hamstrung by their minority status, are determined to slow-walk Trump’s picks unless they start disclosing reams of personal financial data they’ve withheld so far, according to senior aides.I'm old enough to remember when obstructing nominees was unpatriotic or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by username9 on Jan 3, 2017 13:16:06 GMT -5
“It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email.
That's priceless coming from the office of the Senator who singlehandedly blocked a Supreme Court nominee 11 months ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 3, 2017 14:16:30 GMT -5
“It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email. That's priceless coming from the office of the Senator who singlehandedly blocked a Supreme Court nominee 11 months ago. Don't you think that Supreme Court nominees and senior administration members are completely separate things?
|
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 4, 2017 8:31:23 GMT -5
First...A Supreme Court nomination is not the same thing. You are right. It is far more important. And what happens with one changes millions of lives for decades. Second...Those positions are not being obstructed. He will get most it not all of his picks. But some do deserve aggressive questioning such as Jess Sessions who has already been turned down for a federal judgeship and oilman Rex Tillerson. Did the GOP put Obama's original nominees through the ringer when they were selected? If they had, would that not have been called obstruction?
|
|
|
|
Post by username9 on Jan 4, 2017 8:59:31 GMT -5
First...A Supreme Court nomination is not the same thing. You are right. It is far more important. And what happens with one changes millions of lives for decades. Second...Those positions are not being obstructed. He will get most it not all of his picks. But some do deserve aggressive questioning such as Jess Sessions who has already been turned down for a federal judgeship and oilman Rex Tillerson. Did the GOP put Obama's original nominees through the ringer when they were selected? If they had, would that not have been called obstruction?
Tom Daschle and Bill Richardson were both original nominees that had to withdraw in the normal approval process. I believe the issues were related to taxes. If Trump's nominees don't cooperate with the background check and other routine financial audits, they will be put "through the ringer", as they should be. As for judges, President Obama has had more federal judge appointments filibustered or rejected than all previous presidents combined. Thats record-setting obstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 4, 2017 12:14:36 GMT -5
So with the exception of Ms. Solis they each had ethical issues which proved to be true that were causing concern, I'm fine with that. I'm less happy about the Solis situation which seems more political to me (albeit still with ethics issues) however she ended up getting confirmed by Feb 11 so it doesn't seem to be too much of a delay to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 5, 2017 7:34:12 GMT -5
We're not talking about "gimmes" here, we're talking about an intentional strategy to damage the incoming administration by "slow walking" the confirmation of the leadership team.
The reason that you know very little about Rex Tillerson is because he does originate from the private sector where they have much less leeway to break the rules without being punished. The thing that we keep learning about those intimately associated with the government and their cronies are that they can break rules without fear of retribution. Those are the people that need to be cleared out of Washington and replaced with people who have a different understanding of the rules and are willing to play by them.
|
|
|
|
Post by username9 on Jan 5, 2017 8:17:31 GMT -5
We're not talking about "gimmes" here, we're talking about an intentional strategy to damage the incoming administration by "slow walking" the confirmation of the leadership team. The reason that you know very little about Rex Tillerson is because he does originate from the private sector where they have much less leeway to break the rules without being punished. The thing that we keep learning about those intimately associated with the government and their cronies are that they can break rules without fear of retribution. Those are the people that need to be cleared out of Washington and replaced with people who have a different understanding of the rules and are willing to play by them. Its cute that you think that there is less leeway to break rules in the private sector. |
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 5, 2017 8:44:15 GMT -5
We're not talking about "gimmes" here, we're talking about an intentional strategy to damage the incoming administration by "slow walking" the confirmation of the leadership team. The reason that you know very little about Rex Tillerson is because he does originate from the private sector where they have much less leeway to break the rules without being punished. The thing that we keep learning about those intimately associated with the government and their cronies are that they can break rules without fear of retribution. Those are the people that need to be cleared out of Washington and replaced with people who have a different understanding of the rules and are willing to play by them. Its cute that you think that there is less leeway to break rules in the private sector. I like that you think that the government is too incompetent or corrupt to enforce their own regulations on the private sector.
|
|
