5 of 9

Write now Article Tools

Senate confirmation hearings are political, and I don't see anything wrong with that. To suggest that just because something is political means that it lacks integrity seems to miss the point.

The president makes the initial decision on a nomination; the Senate investigates and then approves or rejects the nomination. Thus, the responsibility for showing integrity (as well as savvy and practicality) starts with the president and his advisors. The Senate can only react to the nomination that it's been given. And when it chooses to exercise its Constitutional right to investigate that person, even if the investigation goes on for a long time, the Senate is doing what it has been designed to do.

Sometimes, the president makes a controversial nomination. Again, it should be emphasized that the president decides who to nominate, and he can choose someone who is likely to be approved without a fight. Yet, the president can have many legitimate reasons for choosing a nominee who will be harder to approve. But it's up to the president to make his case publicly and privately on behalf of that controversial nominee. And it's up to that nominee to prove himself or herself under the difficult scrutiny of the confirmation proceedings; after all, if the nominee can't even handle the hearings, how is he or she going to do in the actual job?

Learn more about this author, B. B. James.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Questioning the integrity of Senate confirmation hearings?
We want to hear your view. Write now!