There is a reason the Founders wrote Article 2, section 2 and clause 2 into the U.S. Constitution. They gave power to the president to nominate people to high office, but that power was not absolute. It limited a president's authority by giving the Senate the power to advise and consent to those nominations.
Conservatives have rightly criticized the Biden administration for not properly vetting migrants who have entered the country illegally, and in a few cases committed crimes, including murder and rape while here. If vetting is important when it comes to people crossing our border - and it is - it is equally important when it comes to those who would have power and authority over us in some of our most important cabinet positions.
The definition of "vetting" ought to be helpful to senators: "The act or process of appraising or checking a person or thing for suitability." Just because someone may present themselves as having good ideas does not necessarily make them suitable for the job.
Suggestions that the Senate and House should adjourn for 10 days to allow president-elect Trump's nominees to sail through without hearings is a bad idea that could come back to haunt Trump, his administration and the public.
All the president's nominees should be vetted, but four deserve more extensive examinations to determine their suitability for the offices they seek. They include Pete Hegseth for secretary of Defense (no experience and charges of sexual assault, which his attorney has denied); Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose radical ideas about vaccinations and other things need more probing; Tulsi Gabbard for director of National Intelligence. Her ties to a radical cult and her favorable comments about Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad and Russia must be explained; and Matt Gaetz for attorney general, whose legal experience is minimal at best. The House Ethics Committee should release its investigation of Gaetz and what it found concerning charges of sex with a minor and obstruction. Gaetz has denied the charges and the Justice Department declined to prosecute him. This should not be partisan. Senators need to hear from each of these nominees and under oath.
Recommended
Yes, Washington is ripe for change and the bureaucracy needs to be shaken up, but it must be done the right way, for the right reasons and with the right people.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) should resist pressure to rush through these nominations without hearings and a vote. Several Republican senators have already expressed misgivings about these four. They should be allowed to voice their concerns and to ask questions and vote according to how comfortable they are with their answers. The nominees ought to be able to explain why they are the best people Trump could choose to run these agencies and what they intend to do if confirmed. Call it a type of "why do you want to be president?" question.
If senators need wisdom in doing the jobs they are elected and expected to do, they might consider the Book of Proverbs, which contains many instructions concerning wisdom and foolishness. Here are two of my favorites: "Get all the advice you can, and you will succeed; without it you will fail." (Proverbs 15:22). And then there is this one which should apply not only to senators, but also to nominees: "If you refuse good advice, you are asking for trouble; follow it and you are safe." (Proverbs 13:13)
Holding hearings on Trump's nominees does not mean they can't be quickly confirmed. But a rush to judgment can lead to disaster: "Fools will believe anything, but the wise think about what they do." (Proverbs 14:15)
Join the conversation as a VIP Member