It’s been more than a year since President Trump was elected to office, yet only a little over 50 percent of his nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. If you compare that number to previous administrations, it’s nothing. Around this time during President Obama’s administration, 79 percent of his nominees had been confirmed. For President George W. Bush that number was 65 percent, President Clinton it was 66 percent and for President George H. W. Bush it was 74 percent. President Trump recently said that at the current pace it will only take nine years to confirm all of his nominees.
No other president has had to deal with this type of gridlock and dysfunction. Not only are nominees being stalled and held up in committees, Senate Democrats are taking it one step further and forcing unnecessary cloture votes, which require 30 hours of debate on the Senate floor. These unnecessary cloture votes include votes on nominees that have unanimous and overwhelming support from both sides, yet are still subject to the 30-hour debate. Using this tool as a weapon rather than what it was intended for, Senate Democrats have forced more cloture votes on President Trump’s nominees in his first year in office than the past four presidents first terms combined.
A recent example of this gridlock and dysfunction is my former colleague, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. More than a year ago, Pompeo was confirmed as Director of the C.I.A. by the Senate by a 66-32 vote. Fourteen Senate Democrats voted in favor of his confirmation. However, suddenly these same Democrats had a change of heart during his vetting to be Secretary of State. After weeks of silence from Senate Democrats, only three vocalized support for Pompeo. On April 23, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the confirmation of Pompeo. Every single Democrat voted against his confirmation, with the exception of one who voted present, rather than for or against. Finally, after several weeks of back-and-forth, on April 26, the Senate voted 57-42 to confirm Pompeo as Secretary of State.
Playing politics, especially in a situation like this, is dangerous for U.S. diplomacy. Recently, Sen. Lankford (R-OK) introduced S. Res. 355, which would limit post-cloture debate from 30 hours to eight hours for most nominees, with the exception of Cabinet, Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominees. Previously the Senate had adopted this during the 113th Congress as a standing rule, but S. Res. 355 would make it permanent.
Like I've said in the past, the American people deserve better. The American people elected President Trump and it’s time we give his nominees the respect they deserve.
24 comments:
A. - Other administrations cited had larger numbers (or majorities) of their party in the house/senate.
B - A BIG ONE - Other administrations didn't nominate such unqualified or controversial persons to positions of power.
The representative democracy is just doing's it's job. Don't be fooled into thinking any different.
Opposing parties always obstruct. Trumps issues are with the Republicans.
Wait just a minute here Kernal Long!
Remember what your staff posted under your name not too long ago?
Didn't think so, so let me refresh your memory:
Billy Long; Americans should have a say in Supreme Court selection
(From Seventh District Congressman Billy Long)
After the death of former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia this February, America is faced with one of the most critical decisions its government and people can make: choosing a new justice to serve in the highest court in the land.
As candidate for President Obama’s third appointee to the Supreme Court throughout his tenure, the president chose the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Shortly thereafter, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called for an end to Judge Garland’s nomination process. Now, a resounding number of Congressmen in both the House of Representatives and Senate have asked that we wait to fill this vacancy.
I agree, and believe that nominating or confirming a new Judge to the Supreme Court during a presidential election season is highly irresponsible and neglects the voice of the American people. Voters should have a say in whether or not Garland is fit for the Supreme Court. While it is rare for a Supreme Court vacancy to come open for a late-term and “lame-duck” president, this is a prime opportunity for Americans citizens’ voices to be heard.
As you may have already seen, calls to delay this nomination process have drawn criticism; many Democrats have called the stalling of this nomination a political stunt – even drawing comparisons to President Reagan’s November 11, 1987 nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy with a year left until the next president was chosen.
Most importantly, I still believe the will of the people should be heard in this process regardless of whether it’s 1987 or 2016. But, it is also unfair to categorize Reagan’s nomination of Kennedy as rushed, given that he had previously nominated two justices to fill the vacancy created by Justice Lewis F. Powell’s retirement on June 27, 1987. Robert Bork’s planned nomination was announced by Reagan four days after that date, which was voted down by the Senate. Douglas Ginsberg, Reagan’s second choice, withdrew from the nomination process due to public controversy.
Kennedy’s nomination was the culmination of a long and deliberative process, unlike what the current situation would turn out to be. At the heart of President Obama’s nomination of Chief Judge Garland is our constitutional system of checks and balances. Yes, the president has every right to make a nomination for a Supreme Court vacancy, but the Senate has no mandated duty to immediately confirm that nominee. Even Vice-President Biden opposed confirmation of Supreme Court replacements during election years when he was in the Senate. At the time, he said that confirmation hearings should not be seriously considered "until after the political campaign season is over."
https://rturner229.blogspot.com/2016/04/billy-long-americans-should-have-say-in.html
6:58, the Republicans in the Obama administration kept a Supreme Court vacancy open for months. They never let it be filled before the 2016 election. Bet you think that's different, huh?
Did I say it was different or did I just say Democrats are obstructionists? Learn how to read.
The democratic party is a disgrace. They no longer represent the people, only their own bank accounts.
4:38, you said Dems are obstructionists. You made no reference to the GOP, leaving me to believe you were OK with that. Are you now saying they both do it? Learn how to write.
6:07, the sooner we realize each party is filled with human beings subject to human frailties, the better off we'll be. No party has a monopoly on virtue. They both answer to big money, which I doubt any of us in this thread have.
Did anyone catch any of the Fake News Banquet last night ( Saturday April 27, 2018)?
How about that headliner, Michelle Wolfe?
Isn’t she just America’s Little sweetheart now?
Taking the title away from Shirley Temple!
Harvey HUTCHINSON
Let me help you with understand something. I will try to make it simple.
If I say that a Scottish Terrier is a dog and I don't mention Basset Hounds, it doesn't mean that Bassett Hounds aren't dogs. It simply means I want talking about Bassett Hounds. Does that help you with your reading comprehension?
You see, just because your reaction is to get defensive about Democrats and attack Republicans you infer that I made a statement that I did not make. Of course Republicans are obstructionists. All politicians are anymore. There is no compromise on either side. That is why you see them all flip flop on their stances.
So, reading comprehension lesson number one is over. Do you feel like you're making progress?
Steve, I couldn't agree more.
Cuzzin Hucksterby is no Shirley Temple!
She will be remembered as the Baghdad Bob of the Trump administration.
Whether that earns her a seat on the Supreme Court (along with Ivanka) depends on the outcome of the 2018 midterms.
P.S. Hervey have you heard any hot RWNJ rumors about what happened to Macron's tree? It commemorated the Battle of Belleau Wood so someone better get to the bottom of this!
Mystery as sapling French President Macron gifted Trump during his state visit DISAPPEARS from the White House South Lawn just five days after they planted it together
You are correct, 6:12. If that is how you feel, I inferred something that is not there. Usually, on this forum, the attacks are partisan enough that they leave no doubt which side one takes. I doubt I was the only one who judged your post that way. If I was, I am sorry. If others did, too, you made it easy for people to infer you strongly favored one side over the other.
Are you being serious Mr. Long? Remember the Republican pledge to obstruct everything in the Obama agenda? Were you part of that? Remember when Sen McConnell said the goal was to make Obama a one term president? Well, some people do remember apparently and going eye for an eye and now you can't handle it. Snow Flake much?
Ohhhhh.... two wrongs do make a right!
By your earlier comments, Steve, I would have thought you were defending Democrats. Later, you express a disappointment with both sides. The problem with this country and with this forum is partisanship. Both sides use the American people. Both sides lie. It just amazes me that anyone can defend either party.
Good ol' Billyblob. You tried this BS once before and it was thrown back in your obstructionist face just like this has been. You don't like your own playbook being used against you?
9:55, I used to have a bumper sticker, "Under Republicans, Man Exploits Man; Under Democrats, It's Just the Opposite."
There are good and bad people, smart and stupid people in both parties.
Yes there are good people on both sides who believe in their causes. However the political machines on both sides are evil and destructive. Unfortunately even the good people sucked in and contribute to the dysfunction.
Yall can fool yerselfs into believing Lard @$$ Billy was destroyed by a political machine, but I want to know who forces him to go to Las Vegas and get fed up on the political contributions tit!
Well now, anonymous 6:12AM,
All of your failures to communicate with Steve and everyone else could be solved if you came out from behind that anonymous curtain and identited yourself.
Harvey Hutchinson 303-522-6622 voice&text
Oh come on, Billy Long and Steve Wynn have a lot in common. They both like to drink, chase women and gamble on other people's money.
Hey Harvey, I though you all liked people that spoke their minds and ditched all the political correctness? Did Ms Wolfe hurt all of your feelings? What a bunch of Mamby pamby snowflakes.
Anonymous 8:55
Speaking ones mind, and ditching political correctness is great!!
Advocating murdering KelliAnn Conway with a falling tree in the woods, and mocking Sara Sanders dress and appearance is over the top, lacking civility, and criminal conspiracy by your hero Ms Wolfe is another.
Harvey Hutchinson 303-522-6622 voice&text
Post a Comment