The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Sen. Marco Rubio

Photo by Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on Wednesday that the Senate should stop the tradition of granting deference to Cabinet nominees offered by President-elect Joe Biden. Rubio justified his position by claiming that Democrats "have been just so unfair" to Donald Trump.

"There'll be a lot less deference given to presidential appointments because there was zero deference given to President Trump's appointments," Rubio told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.


Rubio added, "There's just no way that Biden's nominations are going to be treated like they traditionally have been treated under previous presidents, simply because the atmosphere in the Senate has changed."

This commitment to obstruction, Rubio said, is "because of the way Democrats have been just so unfair."

Traditionally, presidents are granted deference for their nominees. This has been true for Trump's administration as well, even though many of his selections for top positions, including his Cabinet, have been criticized for their problematic records, conflicts of interest, or, in the case of many of his judicial nominees, simply being unqualified.

Biden, on the other hand, has indicated that is seeking highly qualified and experienced people for his administration, after winning nearly 80 million votes as well as 306 Electoral Colleges votes — a number Trump characterized as a "landslide" in 2016.


Rubio on nominations 11-18-2020 from Shareblue Media on Vimeo

From the Nov. 18 edition of "The Hugh Hewitt Show":

MARCO RUBIO: I do think that given what's occurred in the Senate over the last four years and under President Trump, there'll be a lot less deference given to presidential appointments because there was zero deference given to President Trump's appointments.
And one of the funny things to see is when President Trump dismisses someone who was confirmed by the Senate but Democrats voted against, suddenly they become a hero of the Democratic Party. But when they were nominated, they were the worst person on Earth if you heard them and what they said about them.
So, look, there's just no way that Biden's nominations are going to be treated like they traditionally have been treated under previous presidents, simply because the atmosphere in the Senate has changed, and frankly, because of the way Democrats have been just so unfair during the Trump years on some of these nominees, that they simply oppose them because the president is for them.
I almost joke that the president should say, "I don't want this person confirmed," nominate him, and then say he's against them so that they would support him. I mean that's how ridiculous it became.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Photo by Village Square/ CC BY-NC 2.0

Reprinted with permission from The American Prospect

The barriers to amending the Constitution are so high that I've long thought it pointless to pursue any reform that way. But after four years of Donald Trump, I've changed my mind. In fact, I'm suffering from a bout of what Kathleen Sullivan in 1995 in these pages called "constitutional amendmentitis."

Sullivan—later dean of Stanford Law School—used the term for conservatives' feverish advocacy of amendments in the mid-1990s. The amendments would have, among other things, imposed a balanced federal budget, limited congressional terms, authorized laws banning flag-burning, given the president a line-item veto, and outlawed abortion. It was a good thing those amendments didn't receive the necessary two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress, much less ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Keep reading... Show less