(Editor's Note: here is the first of what we hope will be many posts from Matthew Fairley, Esq., vice-chair of the Brooklyn GOP's Law Committee and contributor to Brooklyn GOP Radio!)
If one reads the
Constitution, the process by which the President appoints ambassadors, cabinet
members, judges and other federal officers seems quite simple. Art. II,
Sec. 2 of the constitution states:
[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, whose
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by law
On its face it
implies a two-step procedure. The president makes a nomination, and then
the Senate votes to approve or deny that nomination. Unfortunately, in
recent years that has not been the case, with Senate minorities of both parties
filibustering presidential appointments to score political points.
A Brookings Institute study shows that
filibusters have increased from 17 in 1980 to 74 at the close of the most
recent Congress, spiking as high as 105 in the Congressional session ending in
2008.
Though Republican minorities in the three
most recent Congresses have set records, Democratic minorities increased
filibusters each year they were in the minority.
Though some would say the filibuster
is an important procedural safeguard against presidential appointment of poor
candidates, in reality it is dangerous, undemocratic and cowardly.