• njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not law you’re right it’s just happened every single new presidential term in the history of our country. Not turning in their resignation would be such a breach of etiquette that even I think it would be justified to fire her at that point, that’s how ingrained it is into the American system of government. But it won’t be a fight. She will hand in a resignation and if Harris wants to accept it there’s nothing anyone can do. There’s no politics involved. It’s just the executive.

    Also the new nominee won’t be a fight.

    • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Looking it up Powell had to be pushed, and it was because he explicitly wanted to fire him. But ignore that. I’ll give you 100 percent of that. I’m sure I’m technically wrong on the first paragraph. Infact I’m factually, technically, practically, spiritually, and obviously wrong.

      “Also the new nominee won’t be a fight” …

      I live in a world where, even having a majority, congress struggles to tie it’s shoe laces. Every few years they break and shut the whole thing down. I don’t think our realities match up. I don’t think I can see your point, I don’t think you can see mine. I don’t think we have eyes that can look through the same glass.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No I’m saying that when you get rid of the the reformer who actually wants to go after malfeasance and fraud and replace her with somebody who’s been approved by the billionaire donors, that person will not be a fight. What the Republicans are going to be against the person who just rubber stamps corporate malfeasance now? Congress rarely if ever shuts down over the pro corporate candidate. I think if you look at voting roles you’ll see a lot of agreement when it comes to those kind of things.