Senate Confirms Kerry as Secretary of State in 94-3 Vote

[Brett85]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57566516/senate-confirms-kerry-as-secretary-of-state/

[itshappening]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJfRe6iGlo

[Brett85]

Rand voted to confirm him. I think he just feels like he should vote to confirm a President's cabinet picks as long as they're qualified, even though he disagrees with them ideologically.

[CT4Liberty]

Rand voted to confirm him. I think he just feels like he should vote to confirm a President's cabinet picks as long as they're qualified, even though he disagrees with them ideologically.

Isn't that kind of what hes supposed to do though? I mean, I'm all for grilling them in public to show that their ideals and principles are horrible...but if the guy passes the minimum requirements why shouldnt you confirm him? The role of the legislature is to confirm that the person the executive nominated passes basic criteria. If we wanted the legislators to pick the position, we would have said so and not given any authority to the executive.

[Smart3]

As long as the nominee is qualified for the job he's been appointed to, why wouldn't he be confirmed? Isn't the point of the confirmation process to keep the President in check? It's not to dictate who the Pres should have picked.

[Brett85]

Isn't that kind of what hes supposed to do though? I mean, I'm all for grilling them in public to show that their ideals and principles are horrible...but if the guy passes the minimum requirements why shouldnt you confirm him? The role of the legislature is to confirm that the person the executive nominated passes basic criteria. If we wanted the legislators to pick the position, we would have said so and not given any authority to the executive.

I generally agree with that, at least in most instances.

[Confederate]

I generally agree with that, at least in most instances.

Same here. Judicial nominations is another matter.


Anyway, the three "nay" votes were Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; James Inhofe, R-Okla.

[devil21]

Cruz will get some respect for voting no, though I do agree that it's not the Senate's job to vote up or down based on political differences.

[RickyJ]

John Kerry? He might want this position to give himself a shot at another presidential run in 2016. He would be much tougher competition than Hillary would be for Republicans.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Rand voted to confirm him.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

[devil21]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

Naaa there will be no drama over this vote. It's the Senate's job to grill and embarrass for political points but not to hold up appointments for those that are qualified.

[Brian4Liberty]

Isn't that kind of what hes supposed to do though? I mean, I'm all for grilling them in public to show that their ideals and principles are horrible...but if the guy passes the minimum requirements why shouldnt you confirm him? The role of the legislature is to confirm that the person the executive nominated passes basic criteria. If we wanted the legislators to pick the position, we would have said so and not given any authority to the executive.

It was always my impression that the Senate could reject a person for any reason they want.

[Brian4Liberty]

Cruz will get some respect for voting no, though I do agree that it's not the Senate's job to vote up or down based on political differences.

I've never researched the history on it, but was there a prohibition on voting "no" based on political differences?

[COpatriot]

Does anyone know when the Hagel confirmation hearings will be?

[emazur]

Rand voted to confirm him. I think he just feels like he should vote to confirm a President's cabinet picks as long as they're qualified, even though he disagrees with them ideologically.

If Kerry was qualified then that would imply he would always obey the Constitution when carrying out his duties as Sec. of State, and something tells me Rand Paul couldn't seriously believe that would be the case.

[Brian4Liberty]

Constitution, Article 2 Section 2:


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I also read a document from just a few years ago describing the process. It includes a comittee, questions of the nominee, and if it passes that, it can be debated at a full Senate meeting. Simple majority vote confirms. No mention of criteria of any kind.

[devil21]

I've never researched the history on it, but was there a prohibition on voting "no" based on political differences?

Here's a good starting point that Im looking at.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BPL%3F3%230%20%20%0A

eta: this is prob the document you referenced above.

It incorporates particular committee rules and general Senate Rules. I doubt there's specific criteria since each position has different roles and according to that document, there are over 2000 different positions (good god our gov't is so bloated) that require some form of Senate confirmation. 99% are confirmed.

[Karsten]

I voted for Kerry in 2004 (that was before I was a libertarian) purely because I hated Bush and the war.

I just think it's weird how he's nearly unanimously confirmed now and republicans are saying how skilled he is in foreign relations and how he is the perfect choice..... considering how viciously (and successfully) they attacked him in 2004 in the same areas.

[Tax the Fed]

Rand voted to confirm him. . . .

The bar is typically pretty low for a confirmation vote of a President's cabinet -
the POTUS should be given the possibility to work with who he wants to for the most part -
no need for Rand to be an obstructionist here.

McCain I guess voted for Kerry . . . even though Kerry is not aggressive enough as an interventionist as is McShame.
But keep in mind, Kerry really was Obama's second choice here.

Kerry voted "present" btw for his own confirmation vote.

Kerry might be a 2016 Dem candidate for POTUS (again) after this State Dept. gig

And at least Hilary's career in politics is toast.

[devil21]

I guess it could be said that examining an appointee's record of adherence to the Constitution should be considered the only criteria for a yes or no vote. The practical aspect is that 99% of nominees are confirmed. You win the Presidency, you get to pick your cabinet. Good for Cruz for helping his profile with a no vote.

[dannno]

As long as the nominee is qualified for the job he's been appointed to, why wouldn't he be confirmed? Isn't the point of the confirmation process to keep the President in check? It's not to dictate who the Pres should have picked.

Yes, exactly, the Senate just needs to make sure that the candidate isn't a truther or anything like that which might be disruptive to their agenda.

[tsai3904]

Does anyone know when the Hagel confirmation hearings will be?

The committee hearing is Thursday.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/event.cfm?eventid=b34b4165bf50f68b8118de216b398cb6

[Occam's Banana]

[T]he Senate just needs to make sure that the candidate isn't a truther or anything like that which might be disruptive to their agenda.

Nah, not even that. Candidates are thouroughly vetted for Establishment-worthiness before they are ever even nominated.

Confirmations are just a formality - unless one "side" thinks they can score some easy dog-and-pony-show points by jousting the pooch off his roost ...

[Bastiat's The Law]

And at least Hilary's career in politics is toast.
I'm not so sure about that. The media will fawn over her being the first female POTUS and ram her down the throats of voters.

[devil21]

I'm not so sure about that. The media will fawn over her being the first female POTUS and ram her down the throats of voters.

Probably true. The D's are working to hedge their bets just like the R's are. If Hillary fails miserably there has to be another equally bad option to switch to.

[Brian4Liberty]

The bar is typically pretty low for a confirmation vote of a President's cabinet -
the POTUS should be given the possibility to work with who he wants to for the most part -
no need for Rand to be an obstructionist here.

The Democrats have over 51 in the Senate, so confirmation should never be a problem, no matter how many GOP Senators vote no.

If Rand had any questions about the future constitutionality of Kerry's actions, he should have voted "no", and then given a public written statement on his reasoning. Perhaps Kerry answered Rand's questions to his minimum satisfaction.

Kagen was confirmed with a vote of 63-37, so more than a few Senators stood up for the Constitution on that vote.

[Brett85]

Kagen was confirmed with a vote of 63-37, so more than a few Senators stood up for the Constitution on that vote.

There's a different standard for cabinet nominations than Supreme Court nominations. A cabinet appointee simply serves the President in the executive branch; a Supreme Court justice has a lifetime appointment and is responsible for upholding the Constitution.