Testing, 1- 2- 3

nonconsensual government

Newly elected Senate leader John Thune

It should be clear by now that Donald Trump sees consent as something that should not apply to him. Unfortunately, women, and especially white women, did not see this as a problem earlier this month when it comes to exercising his sexual appetites over the years. I have no idea what this means in a sociological sense, like what sort of message this sends men at-large or those women who did find his disregard disqualifying. But I will know what the Senate’s reaction to his more ridiculous cabinet nominations means.

As you may know, our constitution requires that the Senate approve cabinet nominees in a process of one of our admirable constitutional structures of “checks and balances,” worded in reference to cabinet heads as “advice and consent.” There’s that word “consent” facing off with Donald Trump again, and it is going to be a telling showdown between Trump and the Senate over one of more of these agency heads. It’s not hard to see that this is precisely what Trump wants — this is a test.

What’s the tipoff? It’s the extent to which some of his candidates, like Matt Gaetz for Attorney General and Robert Kennedy for oversight of health-related agencies, are so utterly absurd. There is no normal or reasonable case to be made for these two, and arguably others, but it’s that contrast to normal and reasonable which reveals the ultimate purpose. He wants no questions, no second guessing, no consent, ever. Should the Senate and its new leader John Thune abdicate its role of “advice and consent” willingly, allowing Trump to make what are known as recess appointments, that spells the end of “checks and balances” on the President, and the Senate becomes meaningless (much as the Supreme Court and House of Representatives have already become).

In other words, this is a purposeful strategy by Trump’s lackeys (Trump has no idea how the U.S. government is supposed to work) to seize total power, and only the Senate is positioned to resist. Of course, the Senate could conduct normal hearings and refuse to give Trump its consent for these choices like we should expect from the so-called “world’s greatest deliberative body.” But Trump doesn’t want hearings because he doesn’t believe in consent — he wants to make recess appointments. In that light, if the Senate votes to go into recess they will have capitulated to avoid having to stand toe to toe with Trump. But they will also have left Matt Gaetz and Robert Kennedy in trust of our rights to due process of law and a functioning health system.

To be clearer. it has been standard practice for the legislative bodies, the House and Senate, to technically stay “in session” to avoid this long-outdated allowance for recess appointments, but the House is already in Trump’s pocket. So, if the Senate votes to go into recess it may be read as a complete caving in and will clearly demonstrate that neither of the two non-executive divisions of government — the judicial or the legislative —is willing to preserve any morsel of this fundamental principle of our government — checks and balances.

Will the Senate stand strong? There is absolutely no reason to think it will. Will Trump withdraw his most egregious nominations to give the Senate a face-saving escape, as many former presidents have done and as Senators are sure to be begging him to do now? I say no way because his purpose is the opposite — his purpose is to bend them to his will no matter how absurd his demands. And like all-things-Trump, the pathetic excuses we’ll hear to excuse their capitulation would be top-of-the-line comedy if the result weren’t so tragic. And the voting pubic? Most will likely not be bothered to care one way or the other. Stay tuned — testing 1- 2- 3.

After the smoke clears, I’ll try to gather some thoughts about the election. Right now it’s hard to think about.