A while back, the Senate passed a bill

[ck4829]

And part of the bill stated that the President can only nominate qualified people for positions to government, this was done to prevent another Mike Brown from taking over some important government agency (like FEMA for example). Of course, Bush signed a signing statement saying that it would interfere with the Unitary Executive.

But, maybe it can go the other way. The Senate can easily pass a resolution declaring that it will not confirm unqualified candidates. I think we should call them up and ask them to do this.

[radfringe]

1. republics argument against will be:

as the Senate is suppose to interview, have hearings etc. before confirming anyone - and one would "assume" Qualifications would be part of the process...

[liberal N proud]

2. They don't need a bill to reject unqualified candidates

All we need is a competent committee that is not a rubber stamp for the bu$h regime. While the Republic-ons were in control, they simply rubber stamped all but the most extreme candidates bu$h presented.
If the right questions are asked and the Senators do some leg work, people like Gonzo would never had made it past committee.

[w4rma]

3. Why not just pass a law that declares all "signing statements" null and void? (nt)

[nuxvomica]

6. At first I thought that was a good idea

But I realized that such a law couldn't work ex post facto and it might have the effect of validating the previous signing statements.

[w4rma]

10. Of course it would work "ex post facto". The newest law always overrides older laws or "laws". (nt)

[nuxvomica]

11. D'oh! You're right.

Ex post facto would only be an issue if the new law made signing statements illegal. I'm a :dunce:

[KharmaTrain]

4. What's "Qualified"???

That's a very subjective term that is rife for partisan abuse...as we've seen over the past 6 years. Many of our best civil servants came out of the private sector or with little to no direct experience in the area they were assigned, but had an overall background and work ethic that helped them excel. Inversely, look at how many political hacks have stunk up our government with their egos and bank accounts taking precedence over doing a fair and equitable job. That's why confirmation processes are a good thing as we can get a measure of the person being nominated.

We definitely need to address the signing statement mess...and how recess appointment have been abused by this regime. While the Executive needs some flexibility to act quickly in some areas, signing statements must be restricted and time limited...a stop gap until a full confirmation or other legislative action is taken.

If the pendulum swings the way it did in the wake of the Nixon debacles, I see the Legislative putting many new restrictions on the Executive that will set the stage for the next Constitutional showdown.

[Solly Mack]

5. Keeping people like Brown off FEMA is the job of checks and balances

in the form of senate confirmation hearings

When the senate opts to allow a President anyone he or she chooses regardless of how unqualified they are, or how much of an agenda pushing hack they are, or how shady or corrupt they've been in previous positions, then the senate has opted to abdicate their role in checks and balances.


Just a few examples of how the senate abdicated its role in checks and balances
Rice - confirmed
Negroponte- confirmed
Ashcroft - confirmed
Gonzales - confirmed
Rumsfeld - confirmed


When it comes to the benefit of the doubt, the doubt goes to the nominee and the President doing the nominating...the benefit should always go toward the good of the people.

Not the other way around.

Bush got away with piss poor and criminal nominees because a rubber-stamping senate allowed it. All the senate has to do is use the checks and balances they already have...if they don't, for whatever reasons they have, then they are part of the problem.


If those in government did their jobs as they were intended, we wouldn't need additional resolutions. However, the answer isn't more resolutions - it's getting rid of those who refuse to do their jobs in the first place.

Alas...that won't happen. Too much allegiance to political parties and too little concern for the good of the people.


You don't confirm a wolf into office and then complain when the wolf behaves like a wolf.

You try and stop the wolf from taking office.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. What's the bill title/number? n/t

....

[ck4829]

8. It was the homeland security bill passed in 2006

Here's the story on it:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/06/bush_cites_authority_to_bypass_fema_law/

[Sammy Pepys]

9. A minor correction...

...that arrticle says the "minimum standards" benchmark applies only to FEMA nominees, not to nominees in general.