Invalidating Trump's Appointments (Page 2): He can appoint his own people if he becomes president.

Tug484

straightUp wrote:

I was just thinking outside the box a bit and thought... what if Congress passes a bill that simply says all of Trump's appointments are null and void? And what if Biden signs it?

Would it be unconstitutional?
Could Senate block it with only 50 seats?
Would it even be worth it?

He can appoint his own people if he becomes president.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

straightUp wrote:

What? No... Biden can fill whatever vacancies Trump leaves and whatever vacancies appear during his term but that doesn't mean Trump's appointees will be negated.

I'm not actually trying to go anywhere in particular with this. I'm just curious if through an act of Congress Trumps appointments, let's say to the U.S. Supreme Court or the Federal Reserve, can be voided.

Once they have been confirmed by the Senate, they serve their term of appointments unless they die or resign. Any cabinet or position that serves at the pleasure of the President, the appointee can be fired by the new President. Often these people continue in their jobs until the new President appoints replacements.

straightUp Loc: California

Smedley_buzkill wrote:

The Senate cannot block with 50 seats. They can block with 51, which they will probably have after Jan 5th.

OK

Smedley_buzkill wrote:

The Federal Judiciary is a lifetime appointment.

That's actually not a law. People just make that assumption because no one has ever challenged if before.

Article III, Section 1, states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it. As long as federal judges don't commit a crime — and remember their pleases and thank yous — they keep their seat.

Congress also has the power to impeach a federal judge and I think it more likely that a judge would be removed using that power rather than a blanket law that invalidates all of a president's appointees, but as far as I can see, there is NO LAW to prevent Congress from doing just that.

straightUp Loc: California

BigMike wrote:

Janet Yellin will not be Fed chair. It will be a woman, though.

I wasn't talking about Janet Yellin... I was referring to Judy Shelton... the one that Republican Senators refused to confirm in June and suddenly after Biden is projected to win, they changed their minds.

BigMike wrote:

Go for it. I'm reasonably sure you'll be waiting a while, though.

I agree... It's more of a curiosity on my part.

straightUp Loc: California

woodguru wrote:

Except in cases where formal complaints are filed. Kavanaugh had unresolved formal complaints that were not addressed as they should have been. A senate paying attention would have deferred a confirmation pending a resolve by the judicial review board.

It's too bad people are so drunk on political rhetoric that the appropriate concern over Kavanaigh's rushed confirmation was dismissed as a political refusal to accept a conservative judge. If people don't learn to cut through the BS, we're going to have a dictatorship validated by our own false assumptions.

straightUp Loc: California

Tug484 wrote:

He can appoint his own people if he becomes president.

But he can't replace the people that Trump already appointed... I'm saying that Congress has the power to pass a new law to make that possible.

straightUp Loc: California

Kickaha wrote:

Once they have been confirmed by the Senate, they serve their term of appointments unless they die or resign.

That's only been the pattern so far... there's no law that enforces that pattern...

Article III, Section 1, states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it. As long as federal judges don't commit a crime — and remember their pleases and thank yous — they keep their seat.

That itself maybe the strongest argument against a bill that invalidates all Trump appointments. Maybe we can't remove a judge simply because of who appointed him, the judge himself would need to demonstrate unacceptable behavior.

Kickaha wrote:

Any cabinet or position that serves at the pleasure of the President, the appointee can be fired by the new President. Often these people continue in their jobs until the new President appoints replacements.

I'm not talking about cabinet members... Obviously, a president already has the power to remove members of his own cabinet. I'm talking appointments to other branches of the government, such as the judicial appointments.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

straightUp wrote:

I'm not talking about cabinet members... Obviously, a president already has the power to remove members of his own cabinet. I'm talking appointments to other branches of the government, such as the judicial appointments.

There are appointments that are at the pleasure of the President. Others have specific terms or procedures for removal and cannot be done on a whim. Any of these positions the President can ask someone to resign, but he can't fire them.

Michael10

Congress can impeach a SC judge for actions unbecoming of a judge, Judge Samuel Chase is the only SC judge to ever be impeached by Congress but several lower court judges have been removed throughout our history.

straightUp Loc: California

Kickaha wrote:

There are appointments that are at the pleasure of the President. Others have specific terms or procedures for removal and cannot be done on a whim. Any of these positions the President can ask someone to resign, but he can't fire them.

Hey Kick... No offense, but you aren't understanding my point.

I am not asking if a president can remove someone from office, given the current rules. I am asking if Congress can establish a NEW rule specifically to allow a president to replace the appointees of a previous president.

So the only rules that matter to this argument are any existing rules that say... No, Congress cannot pass a law that invalidates a previous president's appointments.

See the difference?

straightUp Loc: California

Michael10 wrote:

Congress can impeach a SC judge for actions unbecoming of a judge, Judge Samuel Chase is the only SC judge to ever be impeached by Congress but several lower court judges have been removed throughout our history.

Yes, and as I had stated in a previous post, I think that would be the more likely route to removing Trump appointees than a law such as the one I am describing. But again, what I'm really looking for are solid arguments that would prevent such a law from being established.

So far, it seems to be a challenge just to get people to even understand what I am talking about, which always seems to happen once I step outside the box.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

straightUp wrote:

Hey Kick... No offense, but you aren't understanding my point.

I am not asking if a president can remove someone from office, given the current rules. I am asking if Congress can establish a NEW rule specifically to allow a president to replace the appointees of a previous president.

So the only rules that matter to this argument are any existing rules that say... No, Congress cannot pass a law that invalidates a previous president's appointments.

See the difference?

You may need to check the Constitution as to which offices have established terms and procedures. Those would require a Constitutional amendment to make any changes.

straightUp Loc: California

Kickaha wrote:

You may need to check the Constitution as to which offices have established terms and procedures. Those would require a Constitutional amendment to make any changes.

That's good advice, of course but I've already done that. This is why I'm posting this, Kick... I've already done the research and I am basically saying, no - there is no existing rule that says the government can't pass an act to invalidate all of Trump's appointments... which means if they really wanted to, they could.

If there WAS a law in the Constitution prohibiting such an act, THEN an amendment would be needed, but since there isn't, a simple majority vote on a Congressional Act would do the trick.

The reason why I'm still asking if it's possible is that maybe someone knows something that I've overlooked.... and trust me, the Constitution would NOT be something I would overlook. ;)

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

straightUp wrote:

That's good advice, of course but I've already don... (show quote)

No problem. Too many fail to consider that the Constitution covers many of the concerns. Our founders thought of almost everything to give us the best map for the country, then and in the future. Unfortunately, I currently have too many irons in the fire and I admit to not taking the time to review the Constitution.

straightUp Loc: California

Kickaha wrote:

No problem. Too many fail to consider that the Constitution covers many of the concerns. Our founders thought of almost everything to give us the best map for the country, then and in the future. Unfortunately, I currently have too many irons in the fire and I admit to not taking the time to review the Constitution.