[Basket_of_Deplorables]

” the appointment of an “acting” cabinet member without Senate confirmation is an end-run around the Senate confirmation requirement. “

No, it’s not. Read Andrew McCarthy on it:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/matthew-whittaker-jeff-sessions-replacement-excellent-choice/

” The president has named him as acting attorney general under the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (the relevant provisions are codified at Sections 3345 and 3346 of Title 5, U.S. Code). There has been some commentary suggesting that because Whitaker was in a job (chief of staff) that did not require Senate confirmation, he could not become the “acting officer” in a position (AG) that calls for Senate confirmation. Not so. The Vacancies Act enables the president to name an acting officer, who may serve as such for 210 days, as long as the person named has been working at the agency or department for at least 90 days in a fairly high-ranking position. Whitaker qualifies.”

[kabar]

Spot on.

[Alberta's Child]

McCarthy is correct on the statute. The issue here is the constitutionality of that provision in the statute.

A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution tells me that the statute on that particular point is flat-out unconstitutional.