After a decisive victory last week, president elect Donald Trump has tapped loyal allies to serve in his next administration and carry out the policies he pledged to deliver to American voters.

Some choices, like Florida Senator Marco Rubio to serve as secretary of state, are seen by members of Congress as qualified and holding the experience needed, while others, like former Congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney general or Fox News host Pete Hegseth to serve as secretary of defense, have caused even members of Trump's own party to admit shock and could face a difficult confirmation process despite Republicans holding control in Congress.

That is, unless the president elect uses a clause in the Constitution allowing him to unilaterally appoint nominees if the Senate isn't in session.

For more on this and how the process might play out, I'm joined by Ross Baker, distinguished professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University.

It's great to see you.

I guess off the bat, I'm wondering clearly, these cabinet picks are the first early test for Congress in terms of getting them approved.

And I'm wondering how much room, if any, is there for dissent when it comes to the choices that we've seen the president elect make so far?

It depends entirely on the nominee.

And of course, it's the Senate that by a simple majority, has to either confirm or reject all nominees.

Not.

And nominees of, duly elected presidents are generally, there's just a kind of presumption that they're well suited for the job, that they come with resumes, that fit the task at hand.

And it's the responsibility of the Senate to do this.

The advice and consent role of the Senate is written into the Constitution.

It's very important.

And senators have in the past taken it very seriously.

But we'll, I guess I'm curious, will the Senate get a chance to give that advice and consent?

There's a lot of talk, as you know, about use of recess appointments.

What is that and how likely is it that will see Congress agree to go about it that way?

Well, the Senate has gone a long way to insulate itself against being forced into, into recess when recess appointments can be made.

The framers of the Constitution understood, that given the travel conditions in the 18th century, and the fact that members are like members and senators are likely to be back in their states and districts, that it would take some time to get to Washington.

So they, they, they set up a system for recess appointments.

But these recess appointments, work were to take place only when the when the Senate was formally adjourned, a Congress decided this was during the Obama administration, that too many of these 20 these appointments from recess, recess appointments because they were running into trouble, with the committees that they were, being interviewed by.

So the the Obama administration is essentially trying to sneak these people through during recess.

And the senators came up with something called a, a, pro-forma recess.

Which is that that one senator could be present and the Senate would technically be in session.

And this is this has worked very effectively.

So there has to be an agreement between the House and Senate that they will they will agree, agree to go out of session strictly for the purpose of allowing the president to, make appointments.

And that was never been done right in the United States.

Let me ask you one more question quickly.

Clearly, on one hand, you have Republicans who say we've been given a mandate, right?

We have a trifecta in Washington.

The president elect won both the electoral and the popular vote, the first time for the Republican Party in decades.

And then you have many Democrats who are saying that, they'll be a rubber stamp.

The Congress will be a rubber stamp.

Would you say this is how our framers saw things as being a co-equal branch of government?

And and how difficult is that going to be?

Well, certainly the framers of the Constitution did not look upon Congress as being a rubber stamp in any sense, and really saw, the things like the confirmation process for presidential nominees in which the Senate must vote by a majority, as an obstacle to, tyranny, that they wanted a process whereby there was a thorough vetting publicly, of of presidential nominees based upon their qualifications.

It wasn't it wasn't designed somehow to hamper the president.

Ross Baker is a distinguished professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University.

Thanks so much.

Pleasure being with you.