The Senate should resist being pressured and fulfill its constitutional duties. The Republic will survive a speedy but thorough vetting process for nominees.
While this blog’s topic would impact healthcare, I admit I am straying a bit from my normal musings here on the website. I usually try to keep politics largely out of my blogging.
I describe myself as a moderate Republican, who holds healthcare views that span both of today’s parties. I tend to favor reasonably expansive healthcare coverage with government support, lining me up with Democrats. I think it is a wise and compassionate position. Affordable universal access will save healthcare dollars and is key to healthcare reform, which also includes price reform and a pivot to care management.
At the same time, I remain a fiscal conservative who thinks that our national debt and deficits will lead to a lower standard of living and less opportunity for our children and grandchildren. We need a delicate balance in government – one that provides necessary services but one that does not produce an inefficient, wasteful, and absolute social welfare state.
I also predicted that Donald Trump would win the presidency. My prediction was based on the polls and trends at the time. I did not tell you how I voted in the recent election – nor do I plan to.
But I am here to say that I am concerned about some trends that are emerging even before the former president takes office again. I believe in constitutional processes and respect for the integrity of our system of government. The founders and framers of the Constitution astutely built important checks and balances into American democracy in the form of the three equal branches of government. They are important safeguards that have helped secure our democratic form of government for almost 250 years now.
But the president-elect is publicly challenging the incoming GOP Senate majority to abandon its constitutional role of “advice and consent” to major government appointments. President-elect Trump seemingly wants to have the Senate allow him to blindly appoint whoever he wants to key Cabinet and other positions. This would be done via recess appointments.
Recess appointments explained
There is no question that recess appointments are part of the Constitution and allowed. The president has the right to make appointments requiring the advice and consent of the Senate when the upper chamber is in recess. The clause was a reasonable provision back in the day when Congress could not possibly be in session year-round. The provision is based on the fact that the president as the executive should have the ability to ensure the government operates properly.
But in the modern era, Congress does operate year-round for the most part and senators and representatives can be available to act within days if needed. It is not to say that recess appointments cannot still be valid at points. I would even argue that if an opposing party in government places unnecessary obstacles in front of the president in terms of appointments, the president can and should still act with recess appointments when allowed. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have done so.
What does Trump want?
But that is not what we have here? While Trump’s request is a few lines on Truth Social, the president-elect seemingly wants the incoming GOP Senate majority to walk away from its constitutional appointment duties and recess its chamber — this would be for more than 10 days, which is the current timeframe essentially set by a Supreme Court decision. In another potential move, under certain circumstances the president could theoretically use an obscure constitutional provision that would allow him to adjourn Congress and make such recess appointments. (This might include a manufacturered disagreement between the two chambers.)
The president-elect does not say exactly when he wants to make recess appointments – immediately or only if it takes too much time to confirm his nominees – but the request is disturbing. I will say that the average Senate confirmation process for presidential appointments has become far too long. It has more than doubled since the 56 days under Ronald Reagan. This burns valuable time to set an agenda and govern. But this is something that can be addressed to allow any administration with a mandate to get started quickly.
What should happen?
I tend to believe that any president should be given significant latitude in appointing who he or she wants to help him shepherd the government – whether Democrat or Republican. But that does not mean the Senate should not take seriously its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on appointments – essentially to vet the suitability of candidates for high government offices and confirm they meet reasonable but high standards.
Without getting into the specifics, there are at least four nominees that have gained scrutiny as to suitability for their offices – Attorney General nominee Matthew Gaetz, Defense Secretary nominee Peter Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard, and Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kenndy Jr. More nominees could be added to this list in the days and weeks to come.
Some of the opposition is simply based on political viewpoints. I don’t believe those are necessarily disqualifiers. But some of the opposition could hinge on whether the nominee truly meets what should be the reasonable but high standards for qualification to these offices. That is where the Senate advice-and-consent role and duty comes in.
To stop recess appointments in the past when government was split, Congress has begun holding what are known as pro forma sessions, where basic duties are held most days even when most lawmakers have left Washington. The Supreme Court has validated the practice. The Senate (and House) should continue such practices and diligently, efficiently, and reasonably quickly vet the nominees and confirm those who pass the test. The Democratic minority should play their role too and not pursue political roadblocks to the process. Only when unreasonable barriers have been put in place that disrupt the vetting and confirmation process should recess appointments be considered.
#constitution #trump #appointments #governance #healthcare #senate #election2024
— Marc S. Ryan
