Trump has earned the right to the cabinet of his choice

[Truth Detector]

Once again, it is not the Senates job to “approve of.” It is “advise” and more importantly, “CONSENT.”

This notion that a President is not entitled to build a cabinet of his choice, barring something dark in the background checks, is absurd and false.

Approval is demanded by the mere fact of the huge electoral win Trump enjoyed. The people have spoken. Democrats need to get on board and STFU.

Trump has earned the right to the cabinet of his choice​

Confirmation hearings began this week for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. If senators stick to the schedule, as many as ten picks could be reviewed, with another eight hearings possible the following week.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, should expedite floor votes to allow the incoming administration to clean up the mess left behind by President Biden.

Senators — particularly Republicans — shouldn’t get in the way of this vital task. The public resoundingly endorsed the incoming administration’s agenda in November, so it’s not the place of senators to second-guess their constituents.
........................

The concern is less about their fitness to serve than the president’s intention to shatter Washington’s status quo. Country club Republicans hate it when someone starts rocking the boat, particularly when it comes to the waging of endless war, spying on U.S. citizens and cozying up to Big Pharma.

The health industry has contributed $27,347,222 to federal lawmakers and spent $259,268,750 lobbying them over the past 10 years, according to Open Secrets. That buys a lot of influence.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jan/14/editorial-trump-earned-right-cabinet-choice/

 

[SmarterthanYou]

based on the ideology of checks and balances and equal representation, I have to disagree with you on this.

 

[Truth Detector]

based on the ideology of checks and balances and equal representation, I have to disagree with you on this.

I personally could care less what you think. I am inclined to go with common sense, the Constitution and history.

This isn't about checks and balances; this is about executive prerogative and the concept of "advise" and "consent." It doesn't mean "demean", "approve of" or "smear." None of the arguments against Trumps picks is about competence.

What are the qualification requirements for being Secretary of Defense? Anyone?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I personally could care less what you think. I am inclined to go with common sense, the Constitution and history.

This isn't about checks and balances; this is about executive prerogative and the concept of "advise" and "consent." It doesn't mean "demean", "approve of" or "smear." None of the arguments against Trumps picks is about competence.

What are the qualification requirements for being Secretary of Defense? Anyone?

and that's fine. you're entitled to be wrong as often as you want to be.

now, does politics cheapen the whole process and turn it in to a clusterfuck? absolutely.

But the bottom line is that the executive gets to nominate, but the US Senate either approves or vetoes....that is their constitutional power to do so

I don't think anyone really knows, nor cares, what actual qualification requirements are there for SecDef.........I like Hegseth and I think he's plenty qualified. One does not need to be a General to qualify for SecDef.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Not according to the Left and Democrats, but then again, I repeat myself.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

based on the ideology of checks and balances and equal representation, I have to disagree with you on this.

So, are you saying that Trump must appoint obstructionists, contrarians, and others opposed to everything he wants and does as his cabinet members?

 

[Diogenes]

I heard that he plans to rule as a dictator, so doesn't that mean he can pick whoever he likes?

 

[BartenderElite]

I agree to a large extent. Trump earned that, and should be able to pick his own people.

But the Senate's role in this IS important. It shouldn't be a rubber stamp. It shouldn't be what it has become either - but there is a happy medium there. They do serve as a check & balance if the incoming admin hasn't vetted well, or if qualifications fall far short of the job being considered.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

and that's fine. you're entitled to be wrong as often as you want to be.

now, does politics cheapen the whole process and turn it in to a clusterfuck? absolutely.

But the bottom line is that the executive gets to nominate, but the US Senate either approves or vetoes....that is their constitutional power to do so

I don't think anyone really knows, nor cares, what actual qualification requirements are there for SecDef.........I like Hegseth and I think he's plenty qualified. One does not need to be a General to qualify for SecDef.

The only "clusterfuck" I've seen so far is Democrat members of the Senate making absolute fools of themselves asking the nominees some of the most absurd, fallacious, insane, and irrational questions I've ever heard. It's like they're trying to out stupid one and other.

 

[Diogenes]

They do serve as a check & balance if the incoming admin hasn't vetted well, or if qualifications fall far short of the job being considered.

Which "qualifications" do you imagine the Senate is qualified to sit in judgment upon?

 

[Diogenes]

Just in case you don’t understand what’s going on here, President Trump may be the greatest civics teacher in our country’s history.

Read and learn.

Silly Swampers shrilly screeching the "unqualified" mantra are trying to pretend they are champions of “Senate confirmation”, without considering whether or not it is constitutional.

This is purposeful.

Governmental power should only ever be exercised on behalf of the people. President Trump just received a massive mandate from the people of America.

President Trump wants this fight and he wants it to be very public.

Why?

All of nis nominees will now be contrasted with the “preferred” candidates of the DC establishment, and the Swampers suffer by comparison.

But it’s more than that.

This fight is over whether or not a president gets to choose his own cabinet to run the Executive Branch.

For too long, the Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch's powers in regards to appointments.

The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.

In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts - within their states.

This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. That's when the Democrats invented the Spoils System that poisoned American government with partisan political patronage.

By the late 19th century, in the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era, Republican presidents and Democrat senators began to clash over control of these positions, prompting some to push the notion of "advice and consent" of the Senate beyond the scope of the Constitution, while also expanding the federal bureaucracy that was beholden to the party.

What started as Senatorial “courtesy" morphed into Senate “approval".

As the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when a Republican majority in Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions supposedly subject to Senate confirmation.

President Trump is taking us back to the Constitution.

As the founders intended, Congress will no longer be able to prevent a president elected by the people from fulfilling his promises by appointing the people he wants.

This is the beginning of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch and re-establishing the separation of powers.

www.senate.gov

 

[BartenderElite]

Which "qualifications" do you imagine the Senate is qualified to sit in judgment upon?

The qualifications for the job. Mainly relevant experience, but advice & consent is more than just voting yes.

It's an important check on Presidential power. It shouldn't be the partisan clown show it has become, but the Senate has a role.

 

[Truth Detector]

and that's fine. you're entitled to be wrong as often as you want to be.

How am I wrong? Presidents don't have the mandate to bring in a cabinet of their own choosing, barring criminal behavior?

now, does politics cheapen the whole process and turn it in to a clusterfuck? absolutely.

It's not "politics", it's Democrats who turn it into a clown show and who want to obstruct a President they don't like.

But the bottom line is that the executive gets to nominate, but the US Senate either approves or vetoes....that is their constitutional power to do so

There is no "approve" in the Constitution when it comes to Senate confirmations. It is "advise" and "consent."

The notion that Senators, many of which know little to nothing about the Constitution, have the chutzpah to argue about one's qualifications to do the jobs is laughable looking at their history.

I don't think anyone really knows, nor cares, what actual qualification requirements are there for SecDef.........

Democrats are the ones who keep bringing it up. It's a valid question. First, he must be a civilian. Two, if retired from the military, must have been retired a minimum of 10 years.

That said, Austin who is the current occupant did not meet that requirement. Should he have been confirmed?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44725

I like Hegseth and I think he's plenty qualified. One does not need to be a General to qualify for SecDef.

It doesn't matter what you like. What matters are the Democrat clowns in the Senate trying to smear the man and deny his appointment.

 

[Truth Detector]

I agree to a large extent. Trump earned that, and should be able to pick his own people.

First smart thing I have seen you post.

But the Senate's role in this IS important. It shouldn't be a rubber stamp. It shouldn't be what it has become either - but there is a happy medium there. They do serve as a check & balance if the incoming admin hasn't vetted well, or if qualifications fall far short of the job being considered.

It is not for the Senate to "approve of". Theirs is "advise" and "consent". They don't get to choose who the President wants on his team barring anything illegal or criminal in their backgrounds.

 

[Truth Detector]

Just in case you don’t understand what’s going on here, President Trump may be the greatest civics teacher in our country’s history.

Read and learn.

Silly Swampers shrilly screeching the "unqualified" mantra are trying to pretend they are champions of “Senate confirmation”, without considering whether or not it is constitutional.

This is purposeful.

Governmental power should only ever be exercised on behalf of the people. President Trump just received a massive mandate from the people of America.

President Trump wants this fight and he wants it to be very public.

Why?

All of nis nominees will now be contrasted with the “preferred” candidates of the DC establishment, and the Swampers suffer by comparison.

But it’s more than that.

This fight is over whether or not a president gets to choose his own cabinet to run the Executive Branch.

For too long, the Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch's powers in regards to appointments.

The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.

In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts - within their states.

This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. That's when the Democrats invented the Spoils System that poisoned American government with partisan political patronage.

By the late 19th century, in the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era, Republican presidents and Democrat senators began to clash over control of these positions, prompting some to push the notion of "advice and consent" of the Senate beyond the scope of the Constitution, while also expanding the federal bureaucracy that was beholden to the party.

What started as Senatorial “courtesy" morphed into Senate “approval".

As the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when a Republican majority in Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions supposedly subject to Senate confirmation.

President Trump is taking us back to the Constitution.

As the founders intended, Congress will no longer be able to prevent a president elected by the people from fulfilling his promises by appointing the people he wants.

This is the beginning of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch and re-establishing the separation of powers.

www.senate.gov

 

[Jade Dragon]

Oh, you mean like how Obama earned the right to appoint a Supreme Court Judge.

 

[Truth Detector]

The qualifications for the job. Mainly relevant experience, but advice & consent is more than just voting yes.

What are the qualifications you think it requires? You think a Senator knows how the military operates?

The only qualification I can find is that they must be a civilian, and if retired from the military, be retired for a period of ten years.

Lloyd Austin did not meet that requirement; should he have been confirmed?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44725

It's an important check on Presidential power.

The Congress is not a check on Executive power. It is a coequal branch of Government that passes legislation. Nothing more.

That stated, in the event the President commits a criminal act, then the congress can impeach him. But that is the extent of their power.

It shouldn't be the partisan clown show it has become, but the Senate has a role.

Yet, that is what Democrats have made of it. They have a made a mockery of many of our institutions over the last four years.

 

[Truth Detector]

Oh, you mean like how Obama earned the right to appoint a Supreme Court Judge.

I don't know what you are talking about. I don't think you know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever know what you are talking about.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So, are you saying that Trump must appoint obstructionists, contrarians, and others opposed to everything he wants and does as his cabinet members?

not what i'm saying at all. trump can NOMINATE anyone he wants. The Senate can consent or veto whoever they want.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The only "clusterfuck" I've seen so far is Democrat members of the Senate making absolute fools of themselves asking the nominees some of the most absurd, fallacious, insane, and irrational questions I've ever heard. It's like they're trying to out stupid one and other.

both sides have done that since clinton was president