Here's what I believe about judicial appointments: I believe that the President of the United States has the authority and the duty to nominate whomever he or she chooses for these offices. (This goes for Cabinet appointments, and other offices, as well.) I do not understand "advise and consent" to mean that a sitting US Senator cannot oppose a presidential nomination to some office, but I personally believe that ignoring a nomination for long periods, that is, to refuse to bring a nomination to the floor for a vote, is a failure of constitutional duty. If I believe that a particular nominee is unsuitable in either temperament, policy preferences, or lacking a basic sense of justice, I should have the courage to vote "no". I think a reasonable time for debate between the Senators about political or policy matters that may be germane is appropriate, but not necessarily while the nominee is giving testimony.
The one thing the American people do not need or want is extended soliloquies about my disagreements with some nominee or other. I have an opportunity during the hearing testimony to actually ask the nominee questions about things that I believe are important. As I have watched hearings over the years, what I see are Senators essentially talking to themselves, and to their voters, as opposed to asking questions of potential nominees. That needs to stop. A group of voters may be able to discern from the nature of my questions the areas of my concern with any nominee or other, but if I ask a question, I actually want an answer. I do not need to score points against the sitting president, or to score points against the sitting president's enemies. It is my responsibility to ask questions about the relevant philosophy of said nominees, simply and directly. If the answer to such questions alarms me sufficiently that I must oppose a nominee, then I will take to the Senate floor, explain my reasoning, and vote accordingly.
I do not intend, as a putative US Senator, to oppose the sitting president's nominees, simply because he or she is from the opposing party. Likewise, I recognize no such automatic duty to support the nominees of a president from the same party. To be very frank with you, I do not know how I will resolve the tension of being a representative who reflects the will of my voters, or who does what I think is best and most prudent. That is a tension inherent in any representative democracy, and highlights the different approaches to that representation. At this moment, I am most inclined to say that in grave matters of consequence, my ethics and my philosophy takes precedence over the will of the majority of the voters who elected me, if they should conflict. If I cannot convince a majority of the voters to support me, even when they do not agree in particular with something I have decided, I would rather have done what I believed is right,--especially in the most important matters--rather than chase the vagaries of public opinion. In less consequential matters, I may well say, "I have this opinion, but the voters of the state of Missouri have a different view, and in this case, I will defer to them."
It is most sad to me that so many members of both parties over the decades have changed their views on fundamental moral issues, or compromised their stances, in order to remain at the levers of power. This situation is distinct in my mind from changing one's mind in response to new information. If someone believes in a certain definition of marriage for example, and they say, "I believe that it is written in the natural law, and in the revealed will of God that x is correct/not correct," you cannot simply easily back away from such a position in a short amount of time. In other words, if I say that such a position of mine is fundamental to how I understand the world, I at least owe the people a detailed account of why I believe it, or why I do not believe it any longer, if I change my mind.
I digress. My main purpose here is to explain that I believe the president of the United States is entitled to a certain deference in his or her choices of personnel for the offices under his authority. If I find that I cannot offer my consent, I will explain and vote accordingly. In large measure, most people in America today are frustrated with elected officials who "play politics". I think the root of this is a lack of principle and consistency from our public officials. I do not believe that partisan rancor is inevitably a part of either the American people's engagement with politics, or inherent to the behavior of their elected representatives. Issues that matter will never be easily settled. Yet we need to actually discuss the issues that matter, and not essentially hide what we truly believe, for fear of political gain or loss. Perhaps it is a weakness of our system as it is currently designed that we are incentivized to hide our true ideas, and to engage in point-scoring against our political opponents--and their voters--but I do think we can do better.
Comments