Heard about the incoming president who chooses the fox to guard the henhouse? Who’s filling the swamp with creatures from the Black Lagoon? Yeah. Me, too. I hate it when real life becomes a bad movie.

We’re in a very busy time in Washington, D.C., with a lot of cabinet appointees up for hearings now and in the coming weeks. Your voice is being heard in Washington! So keep on calling on the issues that concern you. We’ve seen the House pull back on eliminating the Office of Congressional Ethics, we’ve seen the hearings delayed for four incompletely vetted nominees, and Senator Murkowski has joined with several other Republicans to request a delay of the ACA repeal. There will be more. Keep watch, and call your representatives on things that you think they should oppose (or support). Here is a good guide to effectively doing this (I also follow Emily Ellsworth on Twitter). Derek Nelson at re:act is also good. re:act puts out a weekly list that is proving helpful. Here is the current one.

I am calling and hope you will, too. I’ve had some good conversations with congressional staffers.

Contact information for your senators is here. The phone calls are quick and easy when you have a few talking points (you can email, too, but it may not be as effective). I can’t keep up with the list of nominees, but I can point you some places to where to learn more.

When a Cabinet Appointee Should be Denied

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

Senators have some difficult duties in choosing whether to support or oppose a nominee. Ultimately, we want appointees who we can count on to competently oversee their purviews, uphold the laws of the land, and prioritize U.S. interests. Unfortunately, quite a few nominees of the incoming administration would probably not be at their best in the roles for which they are being nominated. And we citizens would suffer. Here is a rather conservative view of the most egregious outliers in the present group, from Cass Sunstein writing for Bloomberg Review:

“Senators should not confirm nominees who reject the mission of the very department they seek to lead…” “…other choices, including Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and Andy Puzder for the Department of Labor, fall in a different category. The reason isn’t that they lack competence or integrity. It’s that the Senate is entitled to insist that the head of a cabinet-level department is committed to the legislative judgments that underlie the existence of that department…Sure, it’s fine if nominees want to reduce both regulatory and enforcement activity. But it’s not fine for an EPA nominee to wish the EPA didn’t exist. Under the Constitution, the central obligation of the executive branch is “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”“ And, finally, “…no one has a right to high office. To deserve confirmation, nominees must, at a minimum, demonstrate a clear commitment to the fundamental mission of the department they seek to lead.”

(He probably didn’t include Perry for DOE in this list because Perry’s nomination was announced four days later.)

There are quite a few reasons to oppose some of the nominees of the incoming Trump administration. Sessions, Tillerson, de Vos, Carson, Pompeo, Perry, Price, and more have been singled out in various forums for being particularly problematic. It would be good if you could take a look as they come up for their confirmation hearings and call your senators if you think some of these should be opposed.

Here is a Google spreadsheet with good information on appointees who many consider should be blocked and the reasons why (and a list of the senators on the hearing committees).

Here is a Google spreadsheet for appointees and their support and lack thereof in the Senate.

Let your senators know how you feel about the nominees who get you worked up.