Dear Harry:But those are the rules for a black president; this year, we're following the rules for a Russian president and racing to hearings for nominees before the above guidelines have been met. Democrats are protesting, and McConnell replies on Face The Nation:
The Senate has the Constitutional duty to provide its Advice and Consent on Presidential nominations, a duty which we take seriously. In consultation with our Ranking Members, we reaffirm our commitment to conduct the appropriate review of these nominations, consistent with the long standing [sic] and best practices of committees, regardless of which political party is in the majority. These best practices serve the Senate well, and we will insist on their fair and consistent application.
Therefore, prior to considering any time agreements on the floor on any nominee, we expect the following standards will be met:
1. The FBI background check is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a hearing being noticed.
2. The Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a committee hearing.
3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the committee for review prior to a hearing being noticed.
4. All committee questionnaires are complete and have been returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior to a committee vote.
5. The nominee is willing to have committee staff interviews, where that has been the pracctice.
6. The nominee has had a hearing.
7. The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when requested.
8. The nominee has committed to cooperate with the Ranking Member on requests for information and transparency.
There will be additional requirements, honoring the traditions of the Senate, for judicial nominees. The common sense standards and long standing [sic] practices will ensure that the Senate has had the opportunity to fairly review a nominee's record and to make an informed decision prior to a vote.
Sincerely,
“All of these little procedural complaints are related to their frustration at having not only lost the White House but having lost the Senate. I understand that but we need to sort of grow up here and get past that.”McConnell insists that hearings for Obama's nominees go by the book; Trump's, not so much.
UPDATE: I had thought the speed with which the Republicans are ramming through the Trump nominations was unprecedented, but it turns out it's not.
As late as 1976 and the Carter administration, nominations were routinely whisked through speedily, on the grounds that the president ought to be allowed to appoint whoever he liked to advance his agenda. There was a vetting process, but it was less stringent than it is today, and it was frequently not completed until after the nominee had been confirmed.
Things blew up for the Democrats in 1977, when the nation was still feeling the sting of Watergate. A friend of Carter's, Bob Vance, was quickly confirmed as head of the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, but it soon came to light that Vance had a past history of corruption and mismanagement. His appointment was withdrawn, a huge embarrassment for the Democrats; since then, the vetting process has been more rigorous and more closely followed.
So McConnell is not doing anything new, historically; but it's still a sharp break with the practice of the last 40 years.
UPDATE 2: Chuck Schumer has trolled McConnell nicely. He took McConnell's 2009 letter, changed "Dear Harry" to "Dear Mitch" and changed the signature from "Mitch" to "Chuck," and returned the letter -- while also sharing it with the press.
0 comments:
Post a Comment