Why Have Hearings?
The Senate is tasked with giving “advice and consent” regarding presidential appointees, like members of the Cabinet. Yesterday, the first in a series of committee hearings on nominations was held, with more to follow this week.
There has been a frenzy over vote-counting and getting Senators to commit on the record if they are voting for or against a certain nominee…all well before the hearings were even held.
And never-camera-shy lawmakers have dutifully played along, providing nice sound bites so as to seem important to voters back home.
But if everyone has made up their minds…why bother with the hearings?
If I were a Senator—heaven forbid—and was asked before hearing the nominee under oath how I planned to vote, I would like to think I would say I was waiting for the testimony. I might add I had not heard anything negative so far, or that I had concerns, or that I did not know enough yet…but to commit to the outcome before the hearing is sort of like having a jury vote before the case begins.
Naturally, with Trump as president, the votes will often be seen along party lines, so hearings don’t matter. If it’s Trump’s person, there’s a fair number who will automatically be for him or her, and a fair number who will automatically be against him or her.
But what’s wrong with simply letting the process play out…wait for the hearings, then call for a vote?
I guess that doesn’t make juicy headlines. Too bad, because it’s a far better way to govern.
