Sen. Hawley's 'holds' on Biden nominees are hostage-taking, not policymaking

Authored by thehill.com and submitted by xRipleyx
image for Sen. Hawley's 'holds' on Biden nominees are hostage-taking, not policymaking

Sen. Josh Hawley Joshua (Josh) David HawleySenators slow Biden with holds at Pentagon, State Overnight Defense & National Security — Milley becomes lightning rod Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley becomes lightning rod on right MORE (R-Mo.) announced last week that unless national security adviser Jake Sullivan Jake SullivanClinton lawyer's indictment reveals 'bag of tricks' Senators slow Biden with holds at Pentagon, State Overnight Defense & National Security: US-Australian sub deal causes rift with France MORE, Secretary of State Antony Blinken Antony BlinkenFive things to watch as Biden heads to the UN Poll: Biden, Trump statistically tied in favorability Majority of voters disapprove of execution of Afghanistan withdrawal: poll MORE and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin Lloyd AustinOvernight Defense & National Security — Presented by AM General — Rocky US alliances as Biden heads to UN assembly Far-right rally draws small crowd, large police presence at Capitol Capitol Police swear in state, local law enforcement ahead of 'Justice for J6' rally MORE resign, he will place a hold on all of President Biden Joe BidenHouse clears bill to provide veterans with cost-of-living adjustment On The Money — Dems dare GOP to vote for shutdown, default To reduce poverty, stop burdening the poor: What Joe Manchin gets wrong about the child tax credit MORE's nominees to the State and Defense Departments. He claims this is necessary to extract accountability for what he says has been a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The idea of senatorial holds is in some sense anti-democratic to begin with. Yet senators of both parties have chosen to keep the device as a way of enhancing their individual power. “Holds” can put off votes on nominees indefinitely, and end only when a senator’s demands are met in whole or part, or if Senate leadership devotes scarce floor time to overcoming a filibuster and moving to a vote. Holds are a mechanism for an individual senator, even if likely to be outvoted even 99-1 on a given nominee, to demand attention from the Executive Branch, say on an issue of particular importance to that senator and his or her state. They also can appropriately be used if a candidate for office requires more vetting, perhaps because a staffer working for a given senator or committee has uncovered something concerning about the candidate that requires further investigation prior to a vote.

The Senate’s prerogatives in the personnel domain stem from its constitutional authorities to give "advice and consent" over nominees for mid- to high-ranking Executive Branch positions — normally at the level of assistant secretary and above, as well as ambassadorial nominations. This is an important element of the nation’s system of checks and balances. Executive Branch officials not only support the president’s policy agenda, they implement whatever laws and allocate whatever budgets are approved by the Executive and Legislative branches acting together. As such, their obligations are to the government and to the nation as a whole. Congress is, therefore, on solid footing in exercising its prerogatives over these positions, diligently and carefully.

However, while vetting candidates and voting promptly on their suitability for office is essential, and very much constitutional, the practice of holds is not inherent to our system of government. Indeed, holds were not even commonly exercised until recent decades, having originated as an informal courtesy that senators extended to one another on the basis of the chamber’s reliance on “unanimous consent” to conduct much of its business. Today, the use of holds is overly expansive, as the Hawley case exemplifies. In a period of exceptionally complex national security challenges, they can harm U.S. national security.

The use of a hold to try to force the resignation of a sitting official escalates the concept dramatically beyond its original intent. Moreover, if there ever were a situation in which a hold could be appropriate for such purposes, this is not it. To be sure, the collapse of the government in Afghanistan has been tragic, and raises serious questions about specific choices that could have been made differently. But in this case, even more than in most, the policy was clearly President Biden's. One of us (Twardowski) agreed with the policy, while the other (O'Hanlon) didn't. But once the United States was down to nearly zero troops on the ground in midsummer, we were likely to lose most control of the situation. As ugly as August in Afghanistan was — and as tragic as was the Aug. 26 truck bombing that killed 13 brave Americans, as well as the ensuing U.S. retaliatory strike against the wrong target in Kabul — by that point any plausible scenario was likely to be bad.

For some, Biden’s policy of rapid U.S. departure this year was a mistake; the policy implementation, however, was hardly an unmitigated disaster — and it was in implementation where Sullivan and Company arguably played their greatest roles. On balance, the evacuation effort was impressive, removing more than 120,000 Americans and Afghans — about as many people as were airlifted out of Vietnam over a 14-month period in 1975-1976, according to Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten. Even after the departure of all U.S. troops at the end of the month, remaining Americans still have been able to leave the country.

This is hardly America’s finest hour. But it has not been a complete debacle or bloodbath.

Hawley, who supported former President Trump Donald TrumpTrump takes shot at new GOP candidate in Ohio over Cleveland nickname GOP political operatives indicted over illegal campaign contribution from Russian national in 2016 On The Money — Dems dare GOP to vote for shutdown, default MORE's deal with the Taliban and criticized President Biden for not pulling all U.S. troops out by May, as the Trump deal required, seems to think there was a foolproof way to depart the country without any serious consequences. That is not persuasive. Among other problems, his approach sends a chilling signal to future policymakers: It may be better to kick a perceived failure down the road rather than face the risk of ending it, because the political costs to doing so are higher than simply passing it along to another administration.

Moreover, there are other costs to Hawley placing holds on Biden's nominees. For one, America's allies may have felt differently about the United States's coordination with them if the United States had all its ambassadors, especially at NATO, in place.

The Senate is an institution that was designed to be insulated from the national swings of politics more than the House is. But something as fundamentally undemocratic as a hold can only make sense — if ever — when a senator has a specific concern relating to his state, expertise or congressional responsibilities. It is not appropriate for general policy disagreements, which should be addressed through normal order. The Constitution ultimately empowers the president with the conduct of the nation's foreign policy; for Sen. Hawley to block President Biden from appointing anyone and everyone he wants is to thwart the design of the Constitution and to escalate the imposition of a hold to the taking of political hostages.

Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Adam Twardowski is a senior research assistant in foreign policy at Brookings.

GuestCartographer on September 21st, 2021 at 14:15 UTC »

Hawley really, really wants to be president, but he can't find the equation to get over the fact that he is a nobody lawyer from a state that hardly matters in the grand scheme of things that he doesn't even line in anymore. He has no personality, everything about the guy is deeply smarmy and unpleasant, and he looks like he is in physical pain whenever he smiles. He thought that standing with the election deniers would be his claim to fame, but that imploded on him when things got violent and he became the terrorist fist bump guy.

He's going to keep doing shit like this until he finds something to win the love and affection of the GOP base so he can compete on the same stage as Cruz, Desantis, and Cotton.

rand0mtaskk on September 21st, 2021 at 12:53 UTC »

So when is he going to resign for his part in Jan. 6th? This is only about accountability after all, right?

Confident_Dimensions on September 21st, 2021 at 12:49 UTC »

Democrats need to change the rules of the Senate to not allow this shit anymore. Simple majority and then can stop Hawley's political terrorism.