The Confirmation Process for Presidential Appointees

Heritage

Key takeaways:

The Constitution divides responsibility between the executive and judicial branches - the president and the Senate.

A president’s most visible and consequential nomination may occur when a seat opens on the Supreme Court.

Historically, the Senate has confirmed most presidential nominations, but “in rare instances” a vote to confirm has failed.

"Americans tend to think of their president as the most powerful person in the world, but the Constitution limits the power of all three branches of government—the president as well as the Congress and the federal courts.In the case of filling top positions in the executive and judicial branches, the Constitution divides responsibility between the president and the Senate. Article II, Section 2 empowers the president to nominate and—“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”—to appoint principal officers such as department heads as well as subordinate ones such as deputies.The process of the president’s nomination of Cabinet secretaries, and the Senate’s confirmation of them, is perhaps best known to the public but still somewhat mysterious.Steps in the ProcessThe Congressional Research Service, which studies and analyzes legislative matters for members of the Senate and House, breaks it down this way:First, the White House selects a prospective appointee and sends a formal nomination to the Senate.Second, the Senate determines whether to confirm the nomination.Third, the president presents a signed commission to the successful nominee and he or she is sworn in, assuming authority to carry out the duties of the office.The appointments clause of the Constitution specifies that the presidentshall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

President Trump is methodically undoing Obama's policies bit by bit . . .

. . . "from abortion to climate change - but it hasn't all been smooth sailing "

UK Daily Mail

"Amid the turmoil over staff shake-ups, blocked travel bans and the Russia cloud hanging overhead, President Donald Trump is steadily plugging away at a major piece of his agenda: Undoing Obama.

"From abortion to energy to climate change and personal investments, Trump is keeping his promises in methodically overturning regulations and policies adopted when Barack Obama was president.

"It hasn't all been smooth sailing.

"Trump recently failed to fulfill his pledge to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which continues to stand as Obama's most recognizable domestic policy achievement. 

"Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan couldn't persuade enough fellow Republicans to back new health care legislation last month. Ryan pulled the measure just before a scheduled House vote.

"Trump has had better outcomes in other areas." . . .   Read more on the list here.

The Russian Emperor's New Clothes

Ann Coulter  "The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won't stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team. 

"Every serious person who has tried to locate any evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election -- even Trump-haters at the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone magazine -- has come away empty-handed and angry. We keep getting bald assertions, unadorned with anything resembling a fact.

"But for now, let's just consider the raw plausibility of the story.

"The fact-less claim is that (1) the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win; and (2) They thought they could help him win by releasing purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee showing that the Democrats were conspiring against Hillary Clinton's primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

"First, why on earth would Russia prefer a loose cannon, untested president like Trump to an utterly corrupt politician, who'd already shown she could be bought? The more corrupt you think Russia is, the more Putin ought to love Hillary as president.

"The Russians knew Hillary was a joke from her ridiculous "reset" button as secretary of state. They proceeded to acquire 20 percent of America's uranium production, under Hillary's careful management -- in exchange for a half-million-dollar speaking engagement for her husband and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

"(Politifact rates this claim FALSE! -- LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! -- because Trump referred to 20 percent of America's "uranium," not to 20 percent of America's "uranium capacity." This is the sort of serious reporting we get from our watchdog media.) 

"The last thing our enemies want is unpredictability in an American president, and Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Actually, that's only the second-to-last thing Putin wants. Russia's only export is energy: The last thing Putin wants is a president who vows to drill and frack, driving down the world oil price.

"But let's say the Russians were morally offended by a woman who could be bought (by them) for a $500,000 speaking fee, and what they really longed for was a bellicose American president promising to put our interests first." . . . 

It's Time For Conservatives To Celebrate This President

"If the president's approval rating really is in the 30s, this makes overt support for him all the more imperative. Whether you like his tweets or not, his fate is our fate."

Dennis Prager

. . . "I say this as one who vigorously opposed him during the Republican contest for the nomination. I said from the beginning, in print and on my radio show, that I would support Trump if he became the nominee, but I dreaded his becoming the nominee. His comments about the size of his hands, Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war and former President George W. Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; his lack of any history as a conservative; and the seeming absence of a filter between his brain and his Twitter app made it difficult for me to imagine him as a serious president of the United States.

"Nevertheless, once he was nominated, I just as vigorously supported him on the simple and — I still believe — unanswerable grounds that while no one could be certain how Trump would govern, we were all certain about how Hillary Clinton would govern — as a leftist. And I truly believed that another four years of left-wing rule would mean the end of America as it was founded to be.

"That is why I found the arguments of the conservatives who were Never-Trumpers, many of whom I work with, admire and count as friends, not just unpersuasive but incomprehensible. That a conservative could prefer Clinton — which was the only upshot of a Never Trump position — to any Republican could only mean that we have an entirely different understanding of the damage the left has done and would have done to America and the Western world if Clinton had won." . . .

NoKo Defector: 'Desperate' Kim Prepared to Nuke U.S.

PJ Media

"The former North Korean deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom told NBC's Lester Holt that dictator Kim Jong Un is "desperate" and would launch nuclear ICBMs at the U.S. at the first provocation.

"Thae Yong Ho, who defected last year, is thought to be one of the highest-ranking North Korean defectors in history. But it is unclear just how close he was to Kim's inner circle and how much first-hand knowledge he has of North Korea's weapons programs.

"NBC News:

According to Thae, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is "desperate in maintaining his rule by relying on his [development of] nuclear weapons and ICBM." He was using an acronym for intercontinental ballistic missiles — a long range rocket that in theory would be capable of hitting the U.S.   

"Once he sees that there is any kind of sign of a tank or an imminent threat from America, then he would use his nuclear weapons with ICBM," he added in an exclusive interview on Sunday. 

Thae was living in London and serving as North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom when he and his family defected to South Korea and were announced to the world in August. 

He was not directly involved in North Korea's weapons program but believes his country "has reached a very significant level of nuclear development."

 

Dear Liberals: Dissolving The Dept. of Education Would NOT End Public School

The Libertarian Republic  "When I was a freshman in college, I was in a research-based writing class that consisted of a very small student-to-faculty ratio and allowed us attendees, a roster that barely broke the double digits, to personally interact with our teacher and have meaningful conversations and debates rather than simply sit back in a huge lecture hall and be talked down to. I much preferred this downsized format, as the smaller, more localized execution of college courses tends to breed more interaction and discourage straight-up lecturing. And as the research shows time and again, whether it be at the undergraduate level or even at the level of highly specialized graduate programs, the discussion model (also referred to as “cooperative learning”) crushes the lecture model every single time in areas of retention, enjoyment, and intellectual stimulation.

"As a result, many colleges and universities (especially the private, autonomous ones) have been shifting their class structures from the giant lecture halls to the more intimate seminar rooms, and “student-to-faculty ratio” is now one of the boxes for every who’s-who college to tick in their profile on U.S. News and World Report. It’s something colleges strive for. And it proves that in an educational setting, smaller, localized, and more controlled management breeds the best results.

"So imagine my surprise when, upon overhearing a conversation between myself and two other students discussing the political merits of (at the time) presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, our class teacher decided to butt in and loudly proclaim for the whole class to hear that Ron Paul was a naive, silly choice for a candidate because he “wants to abolish the Department of Education!” Seeing as how I could tell this was a sore subject for her (my teacher), and my grade was important to me, I didn’t press the matter much further. But looking back on that moment, I wish that I had." . . .

Why Is CNN Refuting The Susan Rice Story It Refuses To Cover?

CNN has decided to debunk the story about Susan Rice unmasking information on citizens close to Donald Trump before reporting on it.

Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist

"For months, CNN has been all over stories that attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency by suggesting ties to Russia. It would be impossible to catalogue the hourly drumbeat of “new” stories on this angle that have gone on for months, despite the lack of named sources or actual evidence.

"The cable news outlet heavily pushed the infamous “Russian dossier” story that was quickly harmed by BuzzFeed showing how dubious to the point of laughable the dossier was. The network’s obsession extends to running red-washed photoshopped graphics of Trump advisors in front of St. Basil’s. The Russia scare headlines run into the dozens each and every day.

"A couple weeks ago, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee publicly stated that he’d seen dozens of reports that were disseminated widely in the intelligence agencies featuring unmasked information on people close to Trump. He stated that these reports were of little to no intelligence value, so that the unmasking was disconcerting. He also stated that these reports had nothing to do with Russia.

"Devin Nunes, the Intel chair, wasn’t speaking anonymously. He was being specific about what he saw and what concerned him. Surely you would think the network that breathlessly reported what turned out to be an easily debunked dossier would understand the significance. Surely you would be wrong." . . .

Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal

Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.

Andrew C. McCarthy   "The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. 

"Remember that. 

"Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets? 

"Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people. 

"That won’t wash. 

"In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions." . . .  Full article here.

A Confederacy of Leftists

Alan Wellikoff   "What we most often refer to as "the Civil War," really wasn't one. A civil war occurs when two factions go to war over control of the same government. While it once made a stab at invading Washington, Lee's army didn't want to seize the city for the Confederate capitol. The South had already established its own seat of government some 90 miles away in Richmond. Despite whatever else might be said of it, the Civil War was a war for independence -- Southern independence.

"What now impends is something different. Less a regional than an ideological conflict – it is one in which one faction (the Democratic Party-occupying regressive left), has lost control of the democratic institutions through which it was able to apply, consolidate, and enforce its ideology over the past eight years. Worse, as the IRS scandal, the Benghazi cover-up and the Fast & Furious fiasco have variously come to show, these efforts were usually undertaken in ways that trash the Republic's centuries-old rules for governing. Instead, they undermined laws and tradition via methods that might be termed “cynical” -- although “Stalinist” wouldn’t be a harsh miss-characterization.

"To the Democrats, the courts, Congress and presidency have constituted institutional versions of that which Lenin famously termed “useful idiots.”  . . .

Democrat base demands 'dumbest' filibuster in Senate history

Joseph Smith  "The Democrats' expected filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch may be the "dumbest" in the Senate's history, as Rich Lowry writes at the New York Post, but it's all about keeping their agitated base at bay.

"Nate Silver, writing at fivethirtyeight.com, as posted at Real Clear Politics, makes the case that while the "Democrats' political endgame is unclear" the Gorsuch filibuster "may simply be a sign of the liberal base's increasing influence over the Democratic coalition."

"Based on data from an outside "Election Study," Silver finds that 69 percent of "politically active Democrats," defined as those who donated, went to meetings, put up signs, and the like, "identified as liberal."

These were some of the voters who helped propel Bernie Sanders to almost two dozen primary and caucus victories last year.

"Silver's article includes a state-by-state table showing the 23 Democrat senators up for re-election in 2018 (plus two independents) alongside estimates for the liberal base in each state.

"The table shows that in 30 of 50 states, more than two thirds of politically active Democrats identified as liberals.  In addition, seven of the ten Trump-state Democrats up for re-election are from those 30 states." . . .

How Feminists React To Muslim Vs Conservative Beliefs On Women

Tiffiny Ruegner   "What a grand idea!!!! NOT! The Huffington Post decided to “celebrate” Muslim Women’s Day with a hashtag #MuslimWomensDay. It didn’t go quite how they expected.

"The funny part is that the recent ‘Day Without Women’ was organized by a Palestinian terrorist who has now been forced to leave the country for lying on her VISA application. She was responsible for the deaths of two Israeli students. Even the Washington Examiner reported that the 69 year-old Palestinian activist was convicted in the 1969 supermarket bombing in Israel that killed two Hebrew University students. Another woman who helped organize the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour, was accused of Islamic Terrorist links.

Ironically, the left aligns themselves with Muslims who oppress women, gays and anyone who disagrees with their religion. Now Huffpo is dealing with having to learn the reality of the Muslim religion that is definitely NOT supportive of feminism or any women’s rights. Ironically, the right has been the leader of women’s rights for over a hundred years. The suffrage movement was a Republican led movement… but of course the left doesn’t want you to know about that. Check out the hilarity on twitter:" . . .

Tweet: "More women fly military jets in Israel than can drive a car in Saudi Arabia. That's what #muslimwomensday means to me pic.twitter.com/9ftbqoySbR"


Hat tip to Chicks On The Right

Democrats Ask Teachers To Destroy Books Written By ‘Climate Deniers’

Daily Caller

"Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

"The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.

“'Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

"The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer." . . .  Read more.