Bad Advice and Consent

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of our Glorious Republic provides that the President shall nominate, and "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" shall appoint, Judges of the Supreme Court "and all other Officers of the United States."  This is often referred to as "the Advice and Consent Clause." We many, we unfortunate many, have witnessed the lugubrious exercise of this function by the Senate regarding the ascension (if that is a word that can be used) of a Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Besides being a clause, Advice and Consent is also the name of a movie made in the early 1960s, presumably based on a book, starring Henry Fonda, Charles Laughton and other worthies regarding the nomination of a man to serve as Secretary of State.  In that movie, the nominee was accused of being a Communist or former Communist; a satisfyingly serious condemnation given the times.  The Senate revealed in the movie is a fictional Senate, of course, but either through the magic of film and art or otherwise that Senate--though portrayed as corrupt in a fashion--seems possessed of a dignity lacking in the real thing of our time.  On this and on other occasions our politicians and our political institutions have demonstrated that truth can be far stranger, or at least seedier, than fiction.

Perhaps "stranger" isn't an appropriate word in this case.  Sadly, there was nothing strange about the proceedings.  They seemed very familiar, in fact.  Posturing, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, scheming, lying is to be expected whenever our politicians are on public display and particularly when they are in groups.  They scheme and lie in private as well, of course, but may be less inclined to posturing, hypocrisy and self-righteousness when not in the public eye.  Be that as it may, the proceedings were by all accounts spectacular; a spectacle, in fact.  I avoided them as much as possible, but a real effort is required to avoid anything that our dread enemy, the media, finds interesting.

What little I saw was disturbing in a peculiar way.  Events were taking place; people were talking, asking and answering questions, but it was difficult to think of it as something which was not a movie or play.  I wonder if that is how we experience events in which we're not directly involved.  We watch a movie, generally a boring, bad one.   Perhaps, but the feeling in this instance may have had its basis in the knowledge that the outcome of the proceedings was virtually certain.  I think everyone knew that the needed number of members of the Senate would consent to the appointment from the very start, regardless of what was said, simply because the majority of members of the Senate are Republican.  The only real question was how the Republicans would contrive to nominate while appearing to take seriously the allegations which were made, and whether they could do so while increasing their political status and likelihood of reelection--ultimately, the only concerns of politicians.

The Democrats like any other person of middling intelligence knew that the nomination would very likely occur, and so knowing that did what they could to attack the integrity of the nomination.  Perhaps, also, they saw it as an opportunity to bring attention to the plight of victims of sexual assault, but I suspect that their primary end in view was to make their Republican colleagues look bad, which was at least achievable.

I won't delve into questions of credibility.  I think it clear enough that the Judge drank excessively in his younger days, and marvel somewhat that he took pains to deny this, or at least not to admit it.  That appears to have been the only well-established fact.  So, he was less than credible in that respect, and much of his expressed outrage in the proceedings seemed a performance, similar to that of Senator Graham.  This doesn't mean he committed sexual assault, however.  Senate Committee proceedings are not useful in determining criminal conduct.

What I find interesting, and disheartening, is that the process has become so partisan, so infused with political conflict, histrionics and melodrama that it is doubtful whether it serves any useful purpose in assuring that competent people are appointed in any capacity as Officers of the United States.  What competent, honorable person would want to subject himself/herself to such a review, given that the review would be conducted by people whose motivation is not assuring that the best person for the job is appointed, but furthering a political agenda at whatever cost?  Chances are the only person who would go through it would be so eager for power that they're willing to expose themselves, to run the gauntlet.

The Senate can still consent, and will no doubt continue to do so, but is no longer capable of giving advice.  But considering that currently, the one who is suppose to be advised is inadvisable, that may not be much of a concern in the short run.