• TooManyFoods
    link
    721 days ago

    “Provoke a confirmation fight” that by itself makes me doubt she’s “already gone”. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong though.

    • @njm1314
      link
      121 days ago

      I don’t see why you would need to provoke a confirmation fight if she doesn’t nominate her in the first place. Which is what I’m sure is going to happen.

      • TooManyFoods
        link
        520 days ago

        … can you read? She’s in place now. When her term runs out she will remain there until the next president nominates someone else. If they do, there will be a fight. Harris DOES NOT NEED TO NOMINATE HER FOR HER TO REMAIN IN PLACE. A confirmation fight happens only if she nominates someone to replace her. Harris doesn’t need to nominates her, only not nominate someone else, and she will stay.

        • @njm1314
          link
          020 days ago

          That’s not exactly how it works. They don’t stay in place. Come January they will all offer their resignation. That’s how it works every new term. Harris of course can refuse to accept their resignations, and thus keep them in place. That’s not unheard of. However there’s no way she won’t offer her resignation. That’s why every new presidential term isn’t started with the new president publicly firing everybody.

          • TooManyFoods
            link
            220 days ago

            So if she turns in a resignation, and harris accepts it… confirmation fight to find a replacement. If she doesn’t accept it… no confirmation fight. And I don’t think it’s law that they turn in resignations. It’s tradition. But that’s not relevant, if harris wants rid of her either through firing, or accepting a resignation, it will be one more political fight

            • @njm1314
              link
              1
              edit-2
              20 days ago

              It’s not law you’re right it’s just happened every single new presidential term in the history of our country. Not turning in their resignation would be such a breach of etiquette that even I think it would be justified to fire her at that point, that’s how ingrained it is into the American system of government. But it won’t be a fight. She will hand in a resignation and if Harris wants to accept it there’s nothing anyone can do. There’s no politics involved. It’s just the executive.

              Also the new nominee won’t be a fight.

              • TooManyFoods
                link
                220 days ago

                Looking it up Powell had to be pushed, and it was because he explicitly wanted to fire him. But ignore that. I’ll give you 100 percent of that. I’m sure I’m technically wrong on the first paragraph. Infact I’m factually, technically, practically, spiritually, and obviously wrong.

                “Also the new nominee won’t be a fight” …

                I live in a world where, even having a majority, congress struggles to tie it’s shoe laces. Every few years they break and shut the whole thing down. I don’t think our realities match up. I don’t think I can see your point, I don’t think you can see mine. I don’t think we have eyes that can look through the same glass.

                • @njm1314
                  link
                  120 days ago

                  No I’m saying that when you get rid of the the reformer who actually wants to go after malfeasance and fraud and replace her with somebody who’s been approved by the billionaire donors, that person will not be a fight. What the Republicans are going to be against the person who just rubber stamps corporate malfeasance now? Congress rarely if ever shuts down over the pro corporate candidate. I think if you look at voting roles you’ll see a lot of agreement when it comes to those kind of things.

    • @Ensign_Crab
      link
      English
      019 days ago

      Honestly, filibustering any nominee to Khan’s right would finally get centrists to get rid of the fucking filibuster.