Search Helium

Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Government & Policies

Questioning the integrity of Senate confirmation hearings

by Dennis Aubuchon

Created on: January 22, 2007   Last Updated: April 26, 2007

Recently the nominee for the office of UN ambassador resigned after a year waiting for an up or down vote to be confirmed. Integrity of the Senate confirmation hearings, in my opinion, is lacking. The committee is only responsible for asking questions of nominees regarding his/her qualifications for the position and duties of the office. Once these questions are completed the Senate must forward the nomination for a vote by the full Senate accepting or rejecting the nominee for a specific position. All nominees should be treated fairly by the Senate in their confirmation hearings. It is not the responsibility of the committee to determine the acceptance or rejection of a nominee. This action is the responsibility of the full Senate. The example of where the UN ambassador nominee never reached the full senate for a vote shows a lack of integrity or at the least the perception of this critical principle.


In my understanding of the process the President nominates people to various positions which must be confirmed by the Senate. The latest situation with the resignation of Mr. Bolton for the position of UN ambassador shows that the process must be changed. It is fitting to have senators from both parties ask specific questions relating to the duties of the position for which they are nominated. However, that is all the committee should do. It should be up to the full senate not the committee to make a determination of acceptability. Every person nominated for a position for which the senate must hold confirmation hearings has a right to have an up or down vote. The current situation with the present process does not provide a method to make sure that an up or down vote by the full senate is generated. This must be changed.
An example of the way senate confirmation hearings should take place is the confirmation by the full senate of the new Secretary of Defense. The senate held confirmation hearings and asked questions relating to the position. After the hearings were concluded the nomination was presented to the full senate which confirmed the new Secretary of Defense. In the case of the UN ambassador this did not take place and should have. I feel that party politics played a role in the UN ambassador nomination not being submitted for an up or down vote. We lose qualified individuals in positions as a result of confirmation hearings that only ask questions and does not present the nominee for a full senate vote.
In summary the confirmation hearings that

171200

Featured Partner

Time 4A Change

Time 4A Change (T4AC) is committed to educating citizens about social issues and mobilizing those citizens as participants in civil discourse. T4AC is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of social issues...more


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA
#