Senate confirmation held hostage by the opposing party

[(no subject)]

The fact that a Presidency of one party's Cabinet appointments can be held hostage to a Senate controlled by the opposition, shows what a mockery the notion of constitutional "originalism" is. Not only was Scalia a creep and going by the worst of the rumors, a pervert, he used the Founders to cloak his bigotry in.

[Xeuma]

What does Scalia have to do with the confirmation of other justices?

[Former President tack50]

I mean, that is just the system working as intended?

[Battista Minola 1616]

The way I am feeling about OP right now is similar to the way S019 usually feels about olawakandi.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I mean, that is just the system working as intended?

Not really. The Constitution was written by people who thought parties were poisonous to a republic, and so they made no provision for divided government.

[(no subject)]

i think Scalia was a repulsive creep. It's my problem, I'll deal with it.

[Sir Mohamed]

The problem here is when political actors don't act as they're supposed to. Senate confirmation was not intended for partisan fights and obstruction, it's merely to check whether nominees meet certain qualifications and ethical standards.

A friend of mine suggested advice and consent should just be repealed, so Biden could appoint his personell without depending on McConnell. You can argue this way, but otherwise, a prez like Trump could put in even worse people than he actually did. I'm sure Trump would have done so if there was no senate approval required. Just think of Mr. Puzder.

[Former President tack50]

The problem here is when political actors don't act as they're supposed to. Senate confirmation was not intended for partisan fights and obstruction, it's merely to check whether nominees meet certain qualifications and ethical standards.

A friend of mine suggested advice and consent should just be repealed, so Biden could appoint his personell without depending on McConnell. You can argue this way, but otherwise, a prez like Trump could put in even worse people than he actually did. I'm sure Trump would have done so if there was no senate approval required. Just think of Mr. Puzder.

I wonder how the Senate (and House) would work if they were forced to work under "Atlasia rules" (to call them some way)

Basically, the full body of the Senate must consider every resolution and action that comes to it, and must bring it to a final vote among the full body; whether to table or to pass the resolution or nomination.

At the same time there is a limited amount of things that can be debated at once, so if there are say, 2 nominations pending and 3 bills being debated, nothing else can happen or be debated until one of the "slots" gets freed by either passing or tabling the bill in question or having a final vote on the nominee.

Probably would never ever happen, but it would still be a fun thing to watch.

This is probably harder to implement with comitees, but I am sure that a workaround can be found (for example, comitees must consider things in the order they were introduced)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem here is when political actors don't act as they're supposed to. Senate confirmation was not intended for partisan fights and obstruction, it's merely to check whether nominees meet certain qualifications and ethical standards.

Nothing in the Constitution was intended for party politics, save marginally the 12th Amendment.

[dead0man]

If Biden picks reasonable people, the GOP will have to sit them.  If Biden picks unreasonable people, the GOP will have to hold them up.  The definition of "reasonable" will be made up, on the spot, by the citizens.  The sheep from both sides will believe the wolves who are wearing the correctly colored hats and call the wolves in the wrong colored shirts liars.

[SnowLabrador]

The system isn't broken. It's working exactly as intended, since the Constitution was written to preserve white supremacy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The system isn't broken. It's working exactly as intended, since the Constitution was written to preserve white supremacy.

Not really.  At the time white supremacy was pretty much a given, so no one thought it needed protection. At most, one can argue that it was written in a way that advantaged the whites of slave States over the whites of non-slave States.