Future Judge Maria Lanahan seems to possess a peculiar form of amnesia. Surprisingly, she expressed doubt over the highly publicized event on January 6, 2021—the invasion of the U.S. Capitol by a violent throng. This came to light when the Senate Judiciary Committee unveiled the aspiring judges’ responses to supplementary queries, a full 11 days after their confirmation hearings had been held.
Such post-hearing interrogations, found in form of erratic PDFs on the committee’s webpage, were the Democrats’ final opportunity to provide substantial ‘advise and consent’ on the appointments, before Republicans ruthlessly pushed for the ratification votes. Unfortunately for those seeking a beacon of light, it seemed that Democrats were hell-bent on attacking their own siege engine.
The questions they posed, however commendable in their precision, further accentuated the portrait of the nominees. It’s an interesting spectacle – Democrat strategy aiming to produce a particular narrative about nominees: lawyers who are sycophantic warriors of culture and proponents of conservative policies, ready to wield the law as a weapon to assault those with differing political ideologies.
Unfortunately for their narrative, Republicans hold the upper hand in the Senate with their 53-47 lead, thus thwarting the Democrats’ efforts in routinely toppling nominations. Moreover, since no recorded evidence exists of said exchanges, the aforementioned narrative crumbled easily. Democrats failed to utilize their golden opportunity to robustly scrutinize the nominees in person, marking a gross missed opportunity.
The Democrats boast of their proficiency in the art of political theater, often outwardly portraying political leaders as a menace to democracy and rule of law. Yet, when presented with opportunities to drum up an engaging confirmation melodrama, they shied away. It’s as though they lack the conviction to make the public care about the confirmation proceedings, indicative of a lack of investment in the battle itself.
It’s perplexing to observe that the Democrats settled for posing questions to record after the hearing, avoiding direct confrontation with the nominees. This stands in stark contrast to their advertised ideology of holding the nominees accountable for their supposed conservative agendas in a candid manner, under public scrutiny.
Allowing the nominees to submit thoroughly scrutinized responses, the Democrats inadvertently approved a free pass for them. An alarming pattern emerged from the nominees’ calculated approach to the questions regarding the 2020 election results, a tactic that doesn’t seem to bother the questioning Democrats.
In response to an inquiry, all five nominees denied ever having discussions or offering ‘loyalty’ during the selection process. However, their calculated ambivalence emerged when queried about the 2020 election outcome. Each of them seemed to evade the reality of mentioning the victor outright.
The nominees carefully sidestepped the question, claiming that the successful candidate ‘was certified’ as the victor by the Congress and served as the 46th president for four years. Their answers seemed to echo certain extremist academics who have proposed that individuals without permanent legal status are alien to the American societal structure and that the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ imply that the government has a constitutional right to deport their U.S. born offspring according to its will.
This may seem like a mere text recount, but in the political amphitheater, it sends a clear signal, one that seems to be conveniently ignored by the Democrats. There is a wealth of material available to Senate policy makers, should they choose to shine a light on these nominees’ true nature.
However, to really make a difference, these law makers would need a significant shift in strategy, one that favors a more confrontational approach. Instead of tiptoeing around questions, they should be unafraid to challenge the nominee records in person, to directly engage, all the while striving for viral social media clips.
If Democrats insist on persisting with this tepid questioning style, opting to ask the most critical questions only in writing and only after the heat of the hearing has dissipated, their efforts will undoubtedly be in vain. This is much like not asking questions at all, and relinquishing their role in the confirmation process.
But perhaps such tactics are not surprising in the light of the recent performances of Democrat leaders like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Their apparent disinterest in holding their political rivals to account is a reflection of the wider party’s apathetic attitude towards pursuing their supposed mission of justice and democracy.
Both Biden and Harris have fallen short in their roles as leaders, often succumbing to passivity in situations that beg for decisive action. This failing is echoed in the confirmation hearing strategies, where Democrats skip confrontations and, in doing so, fail to hold nominees accountable.
Unfortunately, these underwhelming performances do little to instill confidence in the future actions of Democrat leaders, unless they demonstrate a radical shift from their current complacency. Will the Democrats stand up and fight, or will they continue to facilitate the free pass of nominees they deem unacceptable for the republic? Only time will tell.
The post Biden and Harris: The Leaders of a Failure Faction appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
