Donald Trump's second term as president is beginning with significant scrutiny over his chosen appointments. With over 1,000 positions needing Senate approval, including his Cabinet and key administrative roles, the vetting process for nominees is pivotal. Some Trump appointees may bypass the Senate's usual hurdles, but only if the Senate agrees to temporary recess appointments. This power allows him to fill vacancies without the typical Senate confirmation process when the Senate is not in session.
Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia has recently indicated he may support Democratic judicial nominees, irrespective of Republican backing. This is noteworthy because he previously committed only to vote for those who could garner at least one GOP vote. Manchin's readiness to act flexibly on judicial nominations is pivotal at this juncture. With the possibility of Republicans regaining control of the Senate and White House by 2025, the urgency for Senate Democrats to confirm judicial nominees becomes more pronounced, serving as their last opportunity to solidify influence for at least four years.
During discussions, Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, made it clear he plans to expedite the judicial confirmation process before the session concludes. Amidst these conversations about judicial confirmations, Manchin’s voting stance could be instrumental for Schumer to achieve his confirmation targets. Currently, the Biden administration has successfully confirmed 215 judicial appointments, approaching the previous record set during Trump's term of 234.
This shift in Manchin’s approach could provide the necessary leverage for Senate Democrats to push through pending nominations effectively. He has expressed his intent to evaluate candidates on their individual merits rather than adhering to party lines exclusively.
Recess appointments, though less common now, allow presidents to fill positions during the Senate's recess. This provision has been used by past presidents when faced with prolonged approval processes. Historical precedents show former presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton made numerous recess appointments, circumventing the intense political battles typical of the Senate confirmation process. Trump's strategy appears aimed at using this to sidestep delays he encountered previously.
After the 2014 Supreme Court decision, which limited the use of recess appointments, this method became more tightly restricted. Constitutional scholars stress this maneuver is not intended as a way to avoid Senate consultation altogether. To employ recess appointments, Trump would need either the Senate to agree upon its recess or to utilize his rarely invoked power to adjourn both chambers, allowing him to exercise appointments without Senate consent.
Despite controlling Congress, some Republicans have already called Trump's choice for Attorney General, Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida, under scrutiny. This is indicative of potential friction within the party as Trump moves to finalize his administrative team.
Senate confirmation has historically allowed for partisan battles over nominees to take center stage, with loud debates sometimes overshadowing the confirmation process. The tumultuous nature of the past election and the bipartisan distrust within the Senate may lead to additional challenges as Trump positions himself to fill administrative vacancies post-inauguration.
Trump emphasized the need for support from Republican senators for his upcoming appointments to avoid delays similar to those encountered during his previous administration. White House operatives are preparing for possible skirmishes over nominees where backlash could arise from both sides of the aisle. With bipartisan support becoming scarce, the judiciary may see its confirmations hinged on individual assessments rather than overall party alignment.
The importance of quick judicial confirmations for the Biden administration cannot be overstated. Given the impending political shifts expected with the upcoming elections, securing judicial appointments is seen as not only necessary but urgent. For Senate Democrats, this remains the key focus, especially as their political future hangs precariously on their ability to enact these changes swiftly.
