Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Government & Policies
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
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Questioning the integrity of Senate confirmation hearings
by Allen Teal
I am not sure the words integrity and Senate belong in the same sentence. With all of the posturing that goes on within
One wonders what the person who posed this question means by "Integrity". The only thing the United States Constitution
by Barry Parham
Progress or Congress?
We've heard about all the new Czars: the Car Czar, the Energy Czar, the Green Czar, the Lime-Green
Recently the nominee for the office of UN ambassador resigned after a year waiting for an up or down vote to be confirmed.
While questioning the integrity of the Confirmation Hearings conducted by the Senate, let us also question the integrity
View All Articles on: Questioning the integrity of Senate confirmation hearings
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Which US political party is best to handle the economy: Republican or Democratic?
Click for your side.
Featured Partner
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