Tea at Trianon: The Senate’s Confirmation Process Is a National Disgrace

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Sunday, February 2, 2025

The Senate’s Confirmation Process Is a National Disgrace

From Amuse on X:

The Constitution grants the Senate the power of “advise and consent” to ensure that presidential appointments meet a basic standard of competency and ethical fitness. The Founders, ever wary of unchecked executive power, designed this process as a check against cronyism. They did not, however, intend for the Senate to function as an obstructionist body that rejects qualified nominees solely based on partisan animus.
In the early days of the Republic, confirmation hearings were private affairs. Senators genuinely sought to understand a nominee’s character, asking probing but respectful questions. The process was swift—George Washington’s nominees were often confirmed in a single day. Even controversial picks, like John Marshall for Chief Justice in 1801, were debated earnestly rather than subjected to personal destruction.
That began to change in the late 19th century, when the Senate grew more partisan. By the mid-20th century, confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices became political battlegrounds, with ideology taking precedence over qualification. The modern era, beginning with the destruction of Robert Bork in 1987, has cemented a new standard: If the opposing party controls the Senate, expect a brutal and disingenuous inquisition.
Tulsi Gabbard’s hearing was a textbook example of how the Senate has abandoned its duty. A former Democratic congresswoman who became a political independent, Gabbard is no stranger to standing up to her former party’s orthodoxy. But her apostasy was precisely what made her a target.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse demanded that she answer for statements she never made, cutting her off whenever she attempted to clarify. Senator Richard Blumenthal repeated falsehoods about her past remarks, only to ignore her when she offered a direct rebuttal. Senator Mazie Hirono, in her usual performative outrage, lectured her on supposed disqualifications that she conveniently ignored when Democratic presidents nominated radical leftist activists to key intelligence positions.
What was clear from the start was that the decision had already been made. These senators were not there to advise. They were there to obstruct. The hearing was a performance for the cameras, not an attempt to assess whether Gabbard was fit to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official. (Read more.)