Oh really? 
Who do you think appoints/nominates them? Appointment of Judges is perhaps the greatest power bestowed to the Executive Branch.
1 Like
WOOSH!!!
My meaning sailed right over your head.
By Executive Branch nominees, I mean NOMINEES TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
Judicial Branch nominees, on the contrary, are nominees to the Judicial Branch of Government.
Of course, the Executive nominates and appoints both types of nominees, but in my original post, I was referring ONLY to those nominees going to an Executive Branch office.
Yes, I would support a higher standard for Judicial Branch nominees, but I was not speaking about them in the original post.
What you now say you meant and what you said are two different things.
2 Likes
I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
My original statement was accurate.
Nominee is the noun and Executive Branch are adjectives. Nominees TO the Executive Branch.
You simply misunderstood.
This being a semantical argument, I will terminate it at this time so as not to waste anybody’s time reading further back and forth posts.
If people misunderstood before, they now DO understand that I meant only nominees to the Executive Branch.
It is not necessary to discuss this further.
The problem is, you are the only one who knew that you didn’t mean what you wrote.
1 Like
As I said, I will not further bandy semantics, so back to the POINT.
It has long been the practice that Presidents are entitled to appoint cabinet members, department heads and other executive branch positions that line up with their own ideology and objectives. The Senate has long limited its consideration of those nominee purely to matters of fitness for office and qualifications. They have traditionally allowed the President to have free range in the ideology of those appointed, as they should.
It has only been in very recent years, starting with GW Bush and Obama, that Congress has started the practice of slow walking or stopping executive branch nominations and it needs to ■■■■■■■ stop.
Unless the person is patently unqualified for office or unless he has a criminal conviction or other ethical problem, he should be confirmed to office.
That goes whether the President is GW Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden. And Senators of both parties have been guilty of this.
Senators should not vote against an Executive Branch nominee unless he is patently unqualified or has criminal or ethical concerns. And that applies equally to Republican and Democrat Senators.
That was when the insidious regulatory socialism was less that it is today. Albeit slightly.
1 Like
She has no principles. She is self serving.
1 Like
After listening to Mitch today, it’s obvious he hates conservatives, & is not one. He should go.
1 Like
I’m sure that’s what you believe.
What’s your point? What career politician isn’t?
To be fair, I took it to mean the same that Samm did.
It’s not worth arguing over now. You’ve clarified completely.
She will be a democrat soon like little billy crystal
Exactly!
1 Like
Mitch sent money to RINO’s, ignored conservatives, and also sent support to some democrats.
But…he’s the Republican Party head of the Senate…
1 Like
Oh no, we are going to lose blatantly racist affirmative action? gasp
1 Like
No she won’t. If she was going to become a Democrat, she would have done so in 2010.
Are all Republicans conservatives? Do you have to be a conservative to be a Republican? This is a genuine question.
Should not McConnell work for the overall good of the Republican party and not just one faction?
I really do not know enough about the machinations of Republican party politics but I am sure its a continuous balancing act and compromise.
McConnell should be thrown out of his leadership position. He’s a turncoat.
