Senate Confirmation Hearings

limerickman said:

My question is - what are they?

presumably the president nominates a candidate for a position in his cabinet........does the senate have the power to veto that nomination??

just curious.

TV entertainent! Meaningless

limerickman said:

My question is - what are they?

presumably the president nominates a candidate for a position in his cabinet........does the senate have the power to veto that nomination??

just curious.

Yes, in most instances. Usually it is just procedural, there is rarely an objection to the president's nomination. But in some cases.......:eek:

Flyer said:

TV entertainent! Meaningless

eee

kdelong said:

Yes, in most instances. Usually it is just procedural, there is rarely an objection to the president's nomination. But in some cases.......:eek:

thanks.

limerickman said:

My question is - what are they?

presumably the president nominates a candidate for a position in his cabinet........does the senate have the power to veto that nomination??

just curious.

The Senate has to advise and consent to important appointments. When it comes to positions in the executive branch, the Senate tends to let the president staff his administration with the people he wants; but the confirmation process inhibits the selection of people who might cause a Senate fight. Reasons for rejection usually come down to scandal or extremist views. On occasion political enemies of a nominee may torpedo his confirmation.

Before selection of a person who will be subject to confirmation hearings, there will be a vetting process. This usually weeds out people who might be rejected by the Senate or could cause a fight that would cause the president to risk or expend political capital. After the selection is announced, political groups may mobilize to attempt to stop the confirmation. Senators may ally themselves with those groups, whether they have genuine objections to the nominee or just want to take the opportunity to get their names in the media. If the objections garner enough media play then it tends to build on itself. More and more senators will seize the chance for exposure. The controversy may grow to the point where the president's staff feels that fight is getting in the way of other things that need to get done.

At any point in the process, the nominee may withdraw. Only rarely will a nominee be allowed to take the process all the way to rejection since withdrawal is seen as less damaging to the president than a Senate rejection. If confirmation looks to be unlikely, the president will usually halt the nomination, although this almost always take the form of the nominee announcing that he has decided on his own to withdraw.

For example, Bill Richardson was nominated by Obama as the Secretary of Commerce. He withdrew before hearings when it leaked that there was a grand jury investigation into state contracts being awarded to political donors. There are also rumors of womanizing. The first president Bush nominated John Tower as Defense Secretary. He was rejected in a Senate fight because of allegations of alcoholism, womanizing, ties to defense contractors, etc. He also had built up a long list of political enemies during his time in the Senate, and those enemies took their chance to stick a knife into him.

Bro Deal said:

The Senate has to advise and consent to important appointments. When it comes to positions in the executive branch, the Senate tends to let the president staff his administration with the people he wants; but the confirmation process inhibits the selection of people who might cause a Senate fight. Reasons for rejection usually come down to scandal or extremist views. On occasion political enemies of a nominee may torpedo his confirmation.

Before selection of a person who will be subject to confirmation hearings, there will be a vetting process. This usually weeds out people who might be rejected by the Senate or could cause a fight that would cause the president to risk or expend political capital. After the selection is announced, political groups may mobilize to attempt to stop the confirmation. Senators may ally themselves with those groups, whether they have genuine objections to the nominee or just want to take the opportunity to get their names in the media. If the objections garner enough media play then it tends to build on itself. More and more senators will seize the chance for exposure. The controversy may grow to the point where the president's staff feels that fight is getting in the way of other things that need to get done.

At any point in the process, the nominee may withdraw. Only rarely will a nominee be allowed to take the process all the way to rejection since withdrawal is seen as less damaging to the president than a Senate rejection. If confirmation looks to be unlikely, the president will usually halt the nomination, although this almost always take the form of the nominee announcing that he has decided on his own to withdraw.

For example, Bill Richardson was nominated by Obama as the Secretary of Commerce. He withdrew before hearings when it leaked that there was a grand jury investigation into state contracts being awarded to political donors. There are also rumors of womanizing. The first president Bush nominated John Tower as Defense Secretary. He was rejected in a Senate fight because of allegations of alcoholism, womanizing, ties to defense contractors, etc. He also had built up a long list of political enemies during his time in the Senate, and those enemies took their chance to stick a knife into him.

Thanks for that detailed reply, Bro.

I can can see the reason as to why such a process is undertaken - in the American system.
I caught a small bit of the Hillary Clinton confirmation hearing and it appeared to be a mutual admiration contest between the committee and the incumbent,
rather than a formal vetting process but I expect that they've been through her details with a fine tooth comb prior to the public exchange.

I do recall the John Tower issue now that you mention it.