A few prominent lawmakers are trying to bring some much-needed sanity to the Senate confirmation process:
The proposal to end Senate review of about 200 executive branch positions would be the most serious effort in recent years to pare the chamber’s constitutional power of advice and consent. It amounts to a rare voluntary surrender of Congressional clout, and it has high-caliber, bipartisan support with the endorsement of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Backers of the confirmation measure say they want to ease what they call an arduous chore for midlevel nominees trying to navigate the Senate in a supercharged partisan era. While it would not affect senior positions, the legislation, and a related proposal to expedite filling about 250 part-time positions, is intended to reverse an explosion in confirmable posts from about 280 when President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961 to 1,400 today.
It's hard to overstate the extent to which the confirmation process has become a mess for everyone involved; presidents are responsible for filling thousands of positions, nominees are forced to endure endless background checks and intense personal scrutiny, and appointees -- even minor ones -- face the prospect of needless, partisan obstruction in the Senate. Over the years, a bevy of experts have offered a stream of suggestions on how to reform the process, but they tend to fall on deaf ears, for mostly straightforward reasons. Simply put, legislators are incredibly loath to give up influence, particularly when it affords them an opportunity to pressure the administration; it's not rare for presidential appointees to become bargaining chips in legislative fights, either as hostages (to be used against the White House) or as sweeteners (from the president) to placate lawmakers.
For my part, the crass use of presidential appointees isn't a huge problem, as long as there is a clear avenue for confirmation. Right now, well-functioning government faces two major problems: The president is responsible for filling (and the Senate, confirming) hundreds upon hundreds of positions, and legislative minorities have a strong incentive toward obstructing those nominees. As such, broad confirmation reform will ultimately require filibuster reform, but for now, simply reducing the number of confirmable positions is a good start.
On that note, it's worth reading the Brookings Institute's most recent report on confirmation reform. Brookings divides its proposals into two groups: "worthwhile changes" and "low-hanging fruit." In all likelihood, the Senate has little stomach for worthwhile changes, but the low-hanging fruit would be worth pursuing. Among other things, Brookings proposes a "surge" in the number of people responsible for vetting nominees at the beginning of a new president's term, an expansion of the White House staff to create a permanent team of vetting professionals, and a tiered-system of background checks, with the most stringent reserved for top-level nominees. There are things I disagree with in the report -- you can read my critique here -- but I recommend reading the whole thing.
