this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
225 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
4651 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If she wins in November, Vice President Kamala Harris may face a hostile, Republican-controlled Senate in no mood to confirm the senior Cabinet officials she’ll need to run her administration.

Anticipating that scenario, Harris’ team is exploring whether to keep in place some of the Biden administration officials who’ve already been confirmed by the Senate and wouldn’t need to face the gauntlet again, four people familiar with her transition planning said. 

Her aides are also looking at the option of initially retaining some current officials so that she'd have more time to make staffing decisions. With only a few months to build a campaign after abruptly replacing President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, Harris has had little time to focus on the makeup of a new administration, the people familiar with the planning said.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gsfraley@lemmy.world 203 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Whatever happens, I hope she keeps Lina Khan for FTC, that's the appointment I care the most about.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 101 points 1 month ago

"Regulator angers capital for doing their job" is one of my favorite headlines.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 month ago

That's the canary in the coal mine with what she'll do with her administration.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Fewer Garlands, more Khans.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fucking brace yourself for all the “will you prosecute Donald Trump as attorney general?”s

[–] logi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Just lie and then do it anyway. It worked to corrupt SCOTUS, it should work here.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

Sorry, the best I can do is giving Garland a lifetime appointment as AG (* while Democrats control the White House). Think of how much of an epic clapback that would be since they blocked him from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. They'll be so upset when we continue to empower the guy specifically chosen for being extremely inoffensive to Republicans!

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Khan is a good one, I'm personally invested in hoping that Jennifer Abruzzo stays in the NLRB

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 51 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I love how if Republicans win they get to shove through every fever ~~dream~~ nightmare thing they want, but if Democrats win they can still have at least 2 years of absofuckinglutely nothing...

Yay... :(

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yet another reason to increase the size of the House to 1000 members.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think this one is the Senate? The House should be uncapped though.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Th OP article is the Senate, you’re right. The House is the easier fix, though.

[–] aalvare2@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On top of that, the House feels like it really ought to be fixed. The number of representatives has been fixed for almost 100 years, yet the country’s population has more than tripled.

I don’t think legislators of the time expected the population to get so big.

[–] TheHotze@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

To be fair, an uncapped house has been made much more viable with technology that we developed over the last hundred years. Modern sound systems, architecture, and computers are all wonderful.

[–] match@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago

increase the size of the house to 100 million members

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"ITS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!"

zero urgency once elected

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's not so much that it's treated as "zero urgency" from Democrats, but rather Democrats don't embrace a ~~king~~ "unitary executive" theory that Republicans do. So when Trump wins the Republicans accept that he can push through whatever he (read: the heritage foundation) wants, it's a big part of project 2025.

If Democrats win they play by the system that exists, which is: we want something, Republicans say "go fucking die you communist piece of shit" and nothing happens because we don't have a majority. If we end up with a 50/50 split then Joe Manchild and Self-centered Scinema say "go fucking die you communist piece of shit" and nothing happens because we don't have a supermajority and they refuse to help kill the filibuster because they're paid to be Republicans in the Democratic party. This is why the only thing we've accomplished through Congress in the last like 20 fucking years is a goddamn Republican healthcare system (Obamacare is Romneycare) because we had enough of a majority for something like 3 months...

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fun fact: since all appointees serve at the the pleasure of the President, all Secretaries and under Secretaries write a letter of resignation dated on the day the new President is sworn in. It's up to the new President if they're accepted or not.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's common to do this even when a President wins reelection.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

But, then you know if it will be rejected or not. Most often it will be rejected.