The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I've been pretty critical of

(See in situ)

I've been pretty critical of

I've been pretty critical of Rand lately, and I'm still concerned about some of his foreign policy views. However, it has always been his position that he'll generally vote to confirm a President's cabinet picks as long as they're qualified, even though he disagrees with them ideologically. There are a couple of quotes that others made that explain what is going on.

"Isn't that kind of what hes supposed to do though? I mean, I'm all for grilling them in public to show that their ideals and principles are horrible...but if the guy passes the minimum requirements why shouldnt you confirm him? The role of the legislature is to confirm that the person the executive nominated passes basic criteria. If we wanted the legislators to pick the position, we would have said so and not given any authority to the executive."

"As long as the nominee is qualified for the job he's been appointed to, why wouldn't he be confirmed? Isn't the point of the confirmation process to keep the President in check? It's not to dictate who the Pres should have picked."