Chao’s Hubby Slows Senate Vote on Solis for Labor Secretary

[Earth Bound Misfit]

by Mike Hall, Feb 13, 2009


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has threatened to filibuster any of President Obama’s cabinet and judicial nominees unless they meet a brand new set of conditions that McConnell laid out in a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call (subscription required) reported.

These unilaterally developed “standards” from McConnell, who is married to former Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, once again have delayed action on the confirmation of Obama’s nominee for secretary of labor, Hilda Solis. The full Senate vote on her nomination, which was scheduled for today, now won’t come until after Congress returns from the Presidents Day recess.


Earlier this week, the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions committee approved the Solis nomination, more than a month after her conformation hearing. Republican senators forced the delay because of their objections to her support of workers and their unions, especially the Employee Free Choice Act.

CQ Today (subscription required) reports there is no official hold on Solis and that McConnell’s office claims his latest muscle flexing isn’t aimed at Solis. But it’s hard to believe this latest incident in Republican obstruction isn’t specifically designed to embarrass Obama and Reid. It’s also a pretty good sign that the president’s call for bipartisanship is falling on deaf ears.

By the way, the McConnell letter went on to say he plans to issue “additional requirements” for any judicial nominees. Who’s in charge here?
------------------------------

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
Good Question, who's in charge Harry?

[madrchsod]

1. it`s not harry that`s for dam sure

it`s about time obama passed the word down to harry....get it done or get out of the way.

[rurallib]

2. let 'em filibuster Harry

let the unions and the minimum wagers and the unemployed see the Repugs stand up for greed and hate

[Earth Bound Misfit]

4. Not sure here..

Does it take a 3/5 ths majority for cabinet confirmations, cuz if so, I don't think we'll get the votes.

[rurallib]

5. I think Abu Gonzalez was put in like 52-47.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

11. Google is your friend

Memo to self: Was that so hard? :evilgrin:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_presidential_actions_need_senate_confirmation

1 - Nomination of High-Level Appointments

Pursuant to the "advice and consent" provision of the Appointments Clause (Section 2, Article II) of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States may not make certain high-level appointments to positions in the federal government without the advice and consent of the United States Senate. "Consent" means approval by a majority vote of a quorum of the Senate. A higher percentage of approval may be necessary if the opposition party mounts a filibuster, in which case 60% approval by the entire Senate is required to end the filibuster and proceed to a vote on confirmation. Although not constitutionally required, approval of a nomination generally follows a hearing by a Senate Committee normally assigned the task of reviewing legislation pertinent to the office of the nominee, so that Senators from all political parties on the Committee may pose questions to the nominee (or to other persons whose testimony might be relevant to the nomination).

The same provision of the Constitution empowers Congress to determine, through legislation, which appointments will require their advice and consent. However, the Constitution expressly requires the Senate's advice and consent for the appointment of Ambassadors, Judges of the Supreme Court, and other "Public Ministers and Consuls." The latter expression has come to mean, through long practice and common convention, that at least the persons nominated for appointment to top Cabinet level positions, their deputies, and federal judicial positions created by Congress pursuant to their authority under Article III, will all require Senate approval before they may be confirmed to their positions. In any event, the statutes authorizing those positions always state whether Senate advice and consent is required for the appointment. Since the list of appointments requiring Senate approval is not stated in any one place in the federal laws, the statute authorizing the appointment must be consulted to determine whether a particular appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Mr. Chao shouldn't be allowed to vote. nt

[Earth Bound Misfit]

8. "Mr. Chao" lol

I'll take Collaborating Obstructionist Republican Couples for $1000, Alex.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Good one. I'll admit I've had the misfortune to meet Mr. Chao a couple of times.

Not a laugh in a truckload.

[Omaha Steve]

6. Thanks for posting

And thanks for the help. I've been away from my PC most of today. I haven't been to the AFL-CIO blog all day.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

7. Appreciated, but unnecessary

Wish I had more time to contribute here.

EBM

[Earth Bound Misfit]

9. Who's in charge, Harry?

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=56971

Sen. McConnell Could Filibuster Nominees

In related news, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday threatened to filibuster any of Obama's executive branch nominations if they do not meet a series of "standards" for installment, according to a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Roll Call reports. In the letter, McConnell outlined eight requirements that Obama's nominees must meet for Republicans to allow the nomination to come to the Senate floor. According to Roll Call, "The 'standards' laid out in the letter are fairly basic and appear to be aimed at avoiding the kind of revelations of tax problems that sank the nomination of ."

McConnell wrote, "Prior to considering any time agreements on the floor on any nominee," the Obama administration must ensure that an FBI background check is complete and submitted to the overseeing committee in time for review and prior to a hearing being noticed; that the Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a committee hearing; that financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the committee for review prior to a hearing being noticed; that all committee questionnaires are completed and returned to the committee; that a reasonable opportunity for follow-up questions is afforded committee members, and nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior to a committee vote; that the nominee is willing to have committee staff interviews; that the nominee has had a hearing; that the nominee agrees to courtesy visits with lawmakers upon request; and that the nominee has committed to cooperate with the ranking member on requests for information and transparency (Stanton, Roll Call, 2/12).