Under Fire: The Politics of Confirmation.

• Author: SANDEL, MICHAEL J.
• Position: Brief Article

Should Senators consider policy differences a reason to vote no?

YES Should ideology matter in the confirmation process? Traditionally, the answer has been, not much.

The Senate usually lets a President name a Cabinet that reflects his political agenda. Senators are reluctant to reject nominees on the basis of ideological disagreement alone.

Is this reluctance justified? Not necessarily.

President Bush was entitled to name whomever he wanted as Attorney General or Secretary of the Interior. But Senators who opposed John Ashcroft's record on civil rights or Gale Norton's on the environment were also entitled to reject them.

The "advise and consent" provision of the Constitution does not limit the confirmation process to matters of scandal or incompetence, but leaves open the grounds on which Senators may reject presidential appointments.

The reluctance to grapple openly with ideological differences has driven disagreement underground, turning confirmation hearings into a sordid search for personal imperfections that can destroy nominees without engaging their views. It would have been better if Linda Chavez [Bush's first choice for Secretary of Labor, who withdrew] had been rejected for opposing the minimum wage than for sheltering an undocumented alien.

The way to restore civility to the confirmation process is not to avoid ideological debate, but to engage in it more openly.

--MICHAEL J. SANDEL Professor of Government Harvard University Times Op-Ed page

NO In deciding whether to vote to confirm a President's nomination to the Cabinet, the relevant question is not whether the Senator agrees with all of the nominee's policy views on key issues. It is whether the nominee is competent and fit to fill the position. Put another way, the question is not whether the Senator would choose the same person to fill...