Confirmation Hearings Should Not Be Clown Shows
Why do we even have confirmation hearings?
Regardless of which party holds the presidency, confirmation hearings follow the same script. Senators from the President’s party ask questions, or make statements poorly disguised as questions, that paint the nominee as the virtuous public servant with the intellect of Plato. Senators from the opposition party ask questions, or make statements poorly disguised as questions, that paint the nominee as a crazed bottom feeder with the intellect of a mentally challenged Gomer Pyle. The Senators then meet with “journalists” and falsely claim they proved the nominee is exceptionally qualified, or exceptionally unqualified, before wondering off to do whatever Senators do behind closed doors.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that’s what those who wrote and ratified the Constitution had in mind when they included the Advice and Consent clause.[1] This may sound like crazy talk, but just maybe they believed the Senators would take their duties seriously, set aside partisan politics, and enquirer into whether the nominee is actually qualified to fulfill the position they were nominated for? Alas, confirmation hearings have become nothing more than bad theater performed by Senators with one foot on a banana peel and the other in fantasy land. Think I’m harsh? Well, here’s a few observations from yesterday’s confirmation hearings.
Sen. Kaine not only raised Mr. Hegseth’s infidelity but also dragged his seven-year-old child into the mudslinging. Many view infidelity as a character trait relevant to serving as a Cabinet Secretary. Fair enough, but this is a subject best addressed in private meetings. Instead, Kaine decided to raise this issue at a televised public hearing for no other reason than to embarrass the nominee in front of the nation. The fact that Kaine used Hegseth’s daughter in an attempt to do so is despicable.
If Kaine believes infidelity is a bar to serving in high government positions, then why did he support Vice President Harris for President? Did she not have a rather long affair with former San Francisco Mayor and California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown who was married at the time? Granted, Brown’s marriage seems to have been a bit less than traditional – USA Today reported that he would “go to a party with his wife on one arm and his girlfriend on the other.” Brown also acknowledged that he appointed Harris to several government positions while they were “dating,” positions she willingly accepted and used as steppingstones to launch her political career. To put it bluntly, a woman having an affair with a married man and accepting political appointments from him is every bit, if not more, of a charterer flaw than it is for a man to have an affair with a single woman while he’s married. Yet, Kaine had no problem supporting Harris for President.
Sen. Kaine publicly raising Hegseth’s infidelity had nothing to do with the good Senator’s convictions about charter. It was just his partisan attempt to embarrass the nominee and obtain sound bites for his next reelection bid. I would also argue that Kaine dragging Hegseth’s child into his rant shows that if not for bad character, the Senator would have no character.
Then there was Sen. Warren, you remember the one who rode her false claim of being a Native American into becoming a professor and then Senator? She raised Hegseth’s views on women in combat, which is fair given Hegseth’s prior statements. What was not fair is when Hegseth gave an answer she didn’t like, Warren would cut him off, morph into Carnac the Magnificent, and inform Hegseth what his actual positions are.
The rest of the Democrats were just as bad. Schiff lecturing and badgering Bondi without allowing her to answer was a study in how to be a disingenuous and insufferable fool. Not to be outdone Sen. Padilla took Schiff’s antics to an art form by adding sexism to the mix when he “questioned” Bondi.
Unfortunately, Kaine, Warren, Schiff, and Padilla were not the exceptions. All the Democratic Senators distinguished themselves as hacks by not looking for answers to honest questions, but by pontificating in an attempt to make the nominees look like fools whose best career option is to drive the clown car.
The opposite side of the aisle was no better, just different. The Republicans used their time to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats while promoting the nominees. Senator Mullin lead the way, and though he was correct and amusing, nothing he said shed light on whether Mr. Hegseth is qualified to be Secretary of Defense.
Senator Ernst is the only senator on either side of the aisle, that I’m aware of, who asked relevant questions in order to get answers from a nominee. After thinking about Hegseth’s answers, you may conclude he’s not qualified to be Secretary of Defense. You may even conclude his answers were less than honest. However, you have answers to evaluate instead of sound bites to laugh at, and that’s what these hearings should be about – getting answers to relevant questions.
Should we have public confirmation hearings? Of course we should. However, they should be honest hearings so Americans can decide for themselves if they have confidence in the nominees to fulfill the duties they’re about to assume while staying within the confines of the Constitution and law. The hearings most certainly should not be used to embarrass the nominees nor as means to obtain sound bites for future campaign ads…regardless of what letter the Senators have behind their names.
When participating in confirmation hearings Senators need to stop thinking of the next election and start thinking of what is best for our Republic. We the voters must also step up and hold those who do not accept the responsibility of being Senator accountable by unelecting them the next time they run for reelection.[2]
[1] The Advice and Consent clause in its entirety states:
“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” (Constitution, Article I, Section 2.)
[2] Yes, I know “unelecting” is not a recognized word in the English language, but it should be, I like it, and I wrote this article so I can use it!