« Stop Squinting; NAFCU Member Call-In | Main | Exam Issues "On the Radio"; Other "Stuff" »

January 25, 2011



I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say "If a possible director had some flaw or had ideas that made too many Senators uncomfortable, that person would not be confirmed, or more likely - would not even be put forward into the confirmation process."

At this point in time, there is no possible director mutually acceptable to the President and a fillibuster-proof majority of the Senate; ergo, no director has been nominated. In point of fact, even if there is a hypothetical director who would be acceptable, their nomination could be stalled out in the byzantine inner workings of the Senate by a single Senator who disagreed.

Having a Senate-confirmed director is a well-designed example of "checks and balances", but given that the current mood and inclination of the Senate is ill-suited to exercising this power, I can hardly fault them for running without a director in the meantime.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner