Biden Cabinet Confirmation Live Thread ***hearings, votes, etc.***

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Durbin really needs to get the lead out on scheduling a hearing for Garland, sheesh.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Like I've previously pointed out, though, the man has never cast a deciding vote against the Democratic Party line over the course of his nearly 10 years in the Senate. That's just not changing now.

well this aged well. Any comment?

Well, last I checked, I missed the part where he's confirmed to be casting a deciding vote against the Democratic Party line by taking this stand, so my comment would be to f**king wait:

Remember guys, Manchin literally never votes against the party line when it matters, and it's stupid and naive to think that he will. I'm sure that he's only doing this because he knows there are loads of Republicans to pad the margin.

(This is sarcastic in case you can't tell)

Y'all, can we calm the f**k down for literally 5 seconds & just wait & see how this plays out a bit more. It's entirely possible that he's been told Tanden has at least 1 Republican vote (so, literally pick 1 of your Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins', etc.) & that this is therefore not a time where his vote actually matters. But thank you for your failed attempt at a burn, though, very cool!

Maybe (I highly doubt it), but I do note that Manchin is announcing this ahead of any R publicly saying they're a yes.

The problem with Manchin is that we should not have to get down on our knees and beg Murkowski (here) or the Budget Committee (in the case of the budget amendments that he provided deciding votes for) to cover for his misbehavior. He should know enough to provide the desired result himself.

I'm honestly sick and tired of treating someone who voted with Trump more often than not, voted for 80% of his judges, and already has or plans to cast several deciding votes against the dems in this congress, as a Democrat. We need to kick him out of the caucus.

I was following until the last paragraph. How in God's name would deliberately making McConnell Majority Leader again just to teach Manchin a lesson or whatever be preferable to the current situation?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I dunno Rahm's personality doesn't seem like a great fit for Japan, culturally?

It's not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If Manchin sinks Haaland as well as Tanden, I don't think the Native American community is going to just sit back and say "oh well" and let Biden choose some white guy instead. There are plenty of other Native politicians, activists, and businesspeople with both the right views and the right experience for a public lands and Western development portfolio.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/usatodayDC/status/1363911701163352065

Tom, typically the dogwhistles are intended to go over the heads of the liberals.

The implication behind Cotton's question is that supporting "racial equity" as opposed to "racial equality" means discrimination but woke.   Just in case that wasn't clear from the snippet or people aren't familiar with the debate on this.

No, racial equity is "when institutions give equal opportunities to people of all races. In other words, the structures, systems, practices and cultural narratives in society provide true situational fairness and equal opportunity for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or race". Currently, that is not the case in American society.

I hardly think either of these are neutral definitions of the term.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why is Manchin saying he has "remaining questions" making people think he'll oppose Haaland? To me the clear implication is that he's teeing her up to answer those questions at her hearing tomorrow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How's Haaland's hearing going?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nope Harris defined it as equal outcome. Then Biden started using it more. Pretty obvious what it means.

I don't know what you're referring to or talking about. Anyways, racial equity isn't a bad thing - it's what's needed in America.

Okay, I guess I have to spell this out.

Conservative and libertarian thought tends to make a distinction between "equality of opportunity", which most people support, and "equality of outcome", which is controversial because it involves (or is perceived to involve) a certain amount of "positive discrimination" in favor of people or groups that are perceived to have a more disadvantageous starting position. The way progressives talk about equity sets a lot of center-right-to-right people off because it's perceived to indicate a desire to force better outcomes for some groups (which tend to be core Democratic constituencies) at the--again, perceived--expense of others. Add to this the general conservative distrust for specialized language and jargon--or, at least, for jargon that isn't conservative jargon--and you have a widespread lack of openness to the concept among people who don't already believe in it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can’t find any real news about Haaland’s panel - not on NYT, WaPo, or Twitter. What are people seeing?

I listened to a brief section of it where Murkowski, Heinrich, and Lankford questioned her. Heinrich was obviously in favor, Lankford obviously opposed (but much politer about it than I was expecting), and Murkowski seemed skeptical but not dead-set against her. I haven't seen much about Manchin's comments but BudgieForce thinks he's still playing his cards close to his chest. Possibly waiting to see what Murk will do?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is Hawley now the only one who opposed all Biden nominees? Even Cruz voted for Austin.

This has been the case since Lee voted in favor of Buttigieg the other week, yeah.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

During today's session:

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1364314498052587520

Honestly, even as someone who hates Konservadem Kyrsten, the idea of her and Romney having a little rapport going is kind of sweet.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What exactly was the problem with Vilsack? I mean the opposition to him in this forum. Did he do a poor job during the Obama Admin?

Way too close to big agribusiness and apparently a poor record on racial injustices within the agriculture sector, although the latter is true of almost ever recent ag secretary. iirc even the Daily Yonder has been critical of him, and they usually have a center-to-center-left editorial line.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Seems like Manchin's still happy with Haaland after her second hearing. He thanked her today for "being so diligent and doing such a good job".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I agree they should stick by her. Force the Republicans & Manchin to vote her down.

Agreed. Has the added effect of giving us a recent ironclad case to point to of Manchin voting against the party line in a meaningful way and makes his persistent disloyalty clearer than ever.

You're both really overestimating the extent to which your typical Democratic-partisan-on-the-street cares about the Office of Management and Budget.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbendery/status/1367089981517365248

So Haaland is safe even if Sinema decides to say FU to her Navajo voters.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also interesting that the R Aye list is rather different. I thought it'd just be one person who voted Y for Garland and N for Fudge but nope.

I wonder what Ernst of all people likes about Garland that she doesn't like about Fudge, and vice versa for the Indiana Senators. Very interesting.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Merrick Garland was just confirmed as Justice Minister.

It's called Attorney General.

Not in Austria it isn't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Merrick Garland was just confirmed as Justice Minister.

It's called Attorney General.

I know.

But I call the office Justice Minister.

Ah, so you're just being wrong on-purpose. Thank you for so readily conceding that.

No.

I like to call the office like it is called in most countries: Minister for Justice.

Then it's also Prime Minister Merkel and Prime Minister Kurz. Chancellor only exists in Switzerland as a different role and on universities. That's a ridiculous argument.

If you want to call Merkel and Kurz Prime Ministers, nobody is stopping you ...

Come to think of it, what's your opinion on how Nationalrat Majority Leader Kurz is governing these days?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why the  did Mitch vote to confirm Garland for AG when he made it his whole thing that he was never ever gonna confirm him

Mitch's problem with Garland the last time he was nominated for something was with the idea of Obama getting to fill that position in particular, not anything special to do with Garland himself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Manchin and Collins both announced their support for Becerra this morning, all but assuring his confirmation.

Any idea what's going on with Walsh? Surprised he's the only one (besides Lander and OMB) without a full Senate vote scheduled. He got ~2/3rds of the GOP votes in committee so it's not like his confirmation will be particularly narrow.

Walsh has some well-known personal demons (he's in recovery and, in fact, people in recovery are his political base in Boston) that shouldn't ultimately derail his confirmation but that I guess could conceivably be causing scheduling issues.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Manchin and Collins both announced their support for Becerra this morning, all but assuring his confirmation.

Any idea what's going on with Walsh? Surprised he's the only one (besides Lander and OMB) without a full Senate vote scheduled. He got ~2/3rds of the GOP votes in committee so it's not like his confirmation will be particularly narrow.

Walsh has some well-known personal demons (he's in recovery and, in fact, people in recovery are his political base in Boston) that shouldn't ultimately derail his confirmation but that I guess could conceivably be causing scheduling issues.

Yeah, I don't see why that would impact confirmation timing considering it didn't get in the way of him being both selected and sailing through committee

I'm just speculating. I really don't know either.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Walsh passed cloture 68-30.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What is with this whole thing of Senators not voting? You can't be bothered to show up for this? 9 of them for the Haaland vote, Mazie Horono for Beccera...

Hirono apparently has health problems (and the Senate, unlike the House, hasn't implemented proxy voting), but nearly one-tenth of the Senate not showing up for Haaland seems almost as insulting to her as not confirming her would have been.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We're going to go nowhere on climate change, if we have to keep capitulating to "pro-energy" (aka pro-fossil fuel industry) Senators. They still have too much of a grip on climate policy.

These senators represent the 6.7 million Americans who work in the energy sector

I thought senators represented states. If you want people representing  sectors, feel free to move to Hong Kong (they have "functionnal constituencies").

tbf, the Irish Senate is set up this way as well.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pretty interesting development here:

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1374437476845060104?s=20

Maybe people should be appointed because of their professional qualifications and not because of their race, gender or sexual orientation? I'm very disappointed in this move made by Duckworth. She made me change opinion about her a lot

tbf, there are enough high-level civil servants, politicians with clear policy focuses, prominent academics, etc. out there, from all different backgrounds, that most positions could be quite easily filled to meet descriptive representation goals without sacrificing competence or confirmability. For example, I like Marty Walsh a lot, but he's not Obviously More Qualified than Julie Su or anything. However, it does look awfully clientelistic to commit to voting against every pick from a President of one's own party until one's own community's representation goals are met.