Why Do Cabinet Officers Require Confirmation?
Yeah, I know. The whole constitutional thingy.
But the constitution says that Congress may "by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone" which to my reading seems that Congress could simply allow the President to appoint his cabinet without voting on it. The Senate has rejected only nine cabinet officers in the past 200+ years -- and I'm sure some of those were just political hit jobs that had nothing to do with the candidates' actual credentials.
It seems to me (and this is all related to John McCain's "I won't support anyone for Secretary of State" comments) that if this is all just an exercise in Beltway Kabuki Theater, then we should just eliminate the confirmation of cabinet officers altogether. If a President appoints unqualified people to the job, we'll know soon enough and he or she will reap the consequences.
I can understand vetting and approval of Supreme Court Justices, as they're on the bench for life. But cabinet officers are typically only there for no more than eight years and usually less.
= new reply since forum marked as read
"...he (the President) shall 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..."
Cabinet officers are Officers of the United States.
That's why. 
