Presidential appointees should be approved with a 2/3 Senate vote to reject

[themaguffin]

This would stop a lot of nonsense, but still give Senate a check - mind a check that would require real reasons for rejecting a President's appointee.

Having it be a vote to reject nullifies the filibustering as well.

[teddy51]

1. The way the Obstructionist Republicans are acting these days, you would never

get a 2/3rds vote for a Dem Candidate.

[TheWraith]

3. The OP is saying 2/3rds would be required to reject, not to approve.

In other words the appointment would go through if you could martial at least 35 votes.

That said, it has the same problematic potential for abuse as any other kind of supermajority system, i.e. a small group gets to decide for the majority. In this case though it's just getting to approve something instead of block it.

[teddy51]

5. Thanks, misread it! n/t

[HockeyMom]

2. Recess appointment

BUSH did it many times. Obama can too. REMIND them that REPUBLICAN Presidents have done so.

[TheWraith]

4. Obama can't. The Repubs are blocking that too.

They've been keeping the Senate in "pro forma" sessions all year, even when they leave Washington, by having a couple guys stay in town. If the Senate doesn't recess, there can be no recess appointments.

[Empowerer]

6. Be careful what you wish for

We'll eventually have a Republican president again . . .

Not to mention the fact that, in order to get to a vote on whether to reject the nominee, the Senate would have to cut off debate with a cloture motion, which still requires 60 votes.

[themaguffin]

7. I undertstand that, but considering the recent past (Dems almost always cave) I would rather take my

chances with a President getting his guys in, and allowing a 2/3 Senate disapprove them. That would mean it would have to be a truly bad nominee. It would keep gov't moving,spare us needless vacancies, and also stop secret holds etc.

[Empowerer]

8. Even if this were a good idea that wasn't in danger of backfiring terribly in a few years

it would not solve the problem since the vote to reject could be filibustered just as easily as a vote to confirm, resulting in the same outcome: a nomination being blocked.

[themaguffin]

9. Nope, because that person is IN, unless the Senate chooses to vote to reject AND succeeds

and remember, I'm suggesting that the qualifying # of Senators it would take to reject a person would be 2/3.