Is it possible (or even desirable) for the Senate to hold confirmation

[cali]

hearings on Obama appointees prior to the new Congress being sworn in? I suspect Obama is going to make a lot of appointments in the next few weeks, and I think it would be a good thing if confirmation hearings started as soon as possible.

[Egalitariat]

1. He's not president yet. He can't appoint anybody until he's president.

Which means the new Congress will be sworn in.

[onenote]

3. correctamundo

[cali]

7. I believe that's incorrectamundo. For one thing I heard that Dodd had

suggested getting confirmation hearings underway prior to Obama's inauguration, and for another, I'm quite sure that some Clinton appointees were confirmed prior to his inauguration.

[onenote]

11. Actually, now that I look, I was mostly right

This link takes you to a chart of presidential cabinet level nominations/confirmations. It shows when a president elect announces a nomination, when it was sent to the senate and when confirmation occurs. It shows that while nominees are often announced a month or two before the inauguration, the formal transmission of the nomination to the senate and the confirmation doesn't take place until after the inauguration. WHat is not shown here, but Cali is correct about, is that hearings do sometimes occur between the announcement of a nomination and its formal submission to the Senate. In general, those hearings are conducted after the new congress convenes in January, not by a lame duck congress that won't actually be the one to vote on the nominee.


http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/cabinettable.pdf

[H2O Man]

13. Interesting question.

Here is a link that might be of interest. Usually, the hearings are started after a president takes office. However, it might be that due to the nature of today's world, that it is possible and even a good thing to begin earlier.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/obamacabinet.htm

[BOSSHOG]

2. On a related note

I think its well past time that we start narrowing the time between the election and the inauguration. 10 weeks is just plain silly.

[panader0]

5. You're right Boss

It's not just lame duck time, it's dead duck time.

[NoodleBoy]

4. it's not desirable-- it'd be 48 democrats, 49 republicans and lieberman

holding the hearings and votings, instead of possibly 57 democrats, 42 republicans and lieberman.

which group would you rather see?

[Pab Sungenis]

8. No, he means in the new Congress

which convenes January 3rd, more than two weeks before the inauguration.

And, yes, there can be confirmation HEARINGS in advance of the inauguration, but the official votes would have to take place after Obama has formally sent their names over to the Senate as President. Of course, all that paperwork can and should be prepared before so it can be sent over right at noon on the 21st.

[endarkenment]

6. no.

[TayTay]

9. No, it would be illegal

The reason some of us worked so hard to elect a President Obama was the hope of getting someone into office who would obey the law.

Confirmation is the job of new duly elected and sworn members of the 111th Congress. To take that away for the sake of mere "convenience" would be a slap in the face for those also elected in November and show callous disregard for the Constitution and the laws of this country.

This is one of the worst ideas I've heard. The new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 6th or so of next year. That is plenty of time for hearings.

[cali]

10. show me the evidence that it's illegal, and I'll be right there with

you on thinking it's a bad idea. Some people are saying that confirmation hearings can't be held before the inauguration. You're saying that they can't be held before the new Congress is sworn in. I can't find an answer.

And no, I'm not suggesting that Obama break any laws. I am stating that YOU jumped to an erroneous conclusion about my post.

[onenote]

12. as reflected in the chart linked in my post above, hearings can be held by the new congress

before the inauguration, but the confirmation vote never occurs until after the inauguration. And the hearings are held by the new congress -- ie., the congress that will vote on the nomination -- not a lame duck congress.

On edit: I'm not offering an opinion as to whether it would be "legal" for a confirmation hearings to be held by the lame duck congress. However, nominations that are not acted on by a congress prior to its adjournment "die" with the adjournment and would have to be resubmitted and presumably go through at least a semblance of the process by the new congress before full Senate consideration

[TayTay]

15. Article II, Section 2, United States Constitution

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

This has to be done with the newly elected Senators. They are sworn in before the President, usually on or around Jan. 5th or so. These people have to follow the law and be duly elected and sworn before they are legal representatives of the people. No, I don't want anything formal before that. The newly elected Senators do have to get their own offices and transitions in order as well. They are independently elected from the President and have a right and a duty to see to their own offices. Congress is still an co-equal branch of government. That deserves respect.

The preliminary work by staff of vetting the nominees does happen before formal confirmation hearings are held. The prep work for the Obama Cabinet is probably going on now. That is separate from confirmation hearings, which is the exact phrase you used. Confirmation hearings and a formal vote in the US Senate is a prerogative of the Senate, not something that should be hurried for time.

Yes, this is a testy subject. The Bush Administration has treated Congress as a nuisance and obstacle to get around, not a fully co-equal branch of government. These hearings are not nuisances, they are a Constitutional duty for the Senate. I want them done right and with an eye to establishing oversight and accountability as an on-going obligation of both the Congress and the President, as should be done.

[ProSense]

16. One President at a time

Can you imagine confirmations in a split Congress with Cheney as the tie breaker?

Yikes!

[sfam]

14. Bush would need to appoint them. nt

[4themind]

17. While I think you have sound reasons, some reasons against it

may be based on the (fact?) that while hearings can occur during a lame duck session, the confirmation votes for obama's cabinet couldn't occur until obama is official in office. That would also be when the new senate will be there. I think there is value in having these new representatives are able to have their chance to participate in these hearings as well so it may be redundant to have the hearings during the lame duck session and then have them again for the new session. (additionally the larger advantage for democrats may have more people that are serious about the future cabinet composition, and fewer potential for republican sore losers on their way out, but still having an axe to grind while questioning the appointees)

[niceypoo]

18. Do you really want to go down that road?

Obama is a big boy, he can choose who he feels is best without a circus atmosphere. The Republicans would just drool at the prospect of derailing Obamas choices.