Tulsi Gabbard vs. The Senate: A Broken System on Display

The Senate’s Confirmation Process Is a National Disgrace

The United States Senate was once hailed as the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” It was a chamber of statesmen, a forum where decorum and debate reigned supreme, and where a president’s nominees were judged not by partisan allegiance, but by character and competence. That noble ideal died long ago. The confirmation hearing of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence (DNI) under President Trump was just the latest evidence that the process has devolved into an unrestrained spectacle of political theater, where nominees are not vetted but publicly humiliated.

Yesterday’s hearing was disgraceful. It was not an exercise in “advise and consent.” It was an ambush. Democrat senators, armed with selectively edited quotes and prepackaged smears, didn’t seek to assess Gabbard’s qualifications or her vision for the role. Instead, they barraged her with gotcha questions, interrupted her attempts to respond, and twisted her words in real-time. The objective was never to deliberate. It was to embarrass her on national television, to stage a spectacle for their base and their media allies. And in this pursuit, they made it abundantly clear: The Senate’s confirmation process is irreparably broken.

The Lost Tradition of Deliberation

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: A Case Study in Senate Dysfunction

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.

Two Solutions: Restore Decorum or Drop the Pretense

If the Senate is to reclaim its dignity, it must either restore the traditional norms of confirmation hearings or fully embrace the reality of the partisan battlefield and level the playing field.

One possible solution is to return to private deliberations. Nominees could be vetted behind closed doors, where grandstanding is impossible, and the focus remains on qualifications rather than political spectacle. The British Parliament handles appointments in a far less sensationalist manner, and the Republic would be better for following suit.

If public hearings must remain, rules should be reformed to ensure fairness. Senators should be required to allow nominees a reasonable amount of time to respond before they are interrupted. False claims should be struck from the record. Most importantly, senators who demonstrate clear bad faith should be sanctioned.

Alternatively, if decorum is gone for good, nominees should be allowed to fight back. If senators are permitted to interrupt nominees at will, nominees should be granted the same right to interrupt misleading or bad-faith questioning. If a senator distorts a nominee’s record, the nominee should be free to ridicule their ignorance in real-time. If the confirmation process is to be a cage match, then at least let both sides throw punches.

Better yet, eliminate the entire charade and require an up-or-down vote within a set timeframe. Let the president have his Cabinet. If the Senate cannot prove that a nominee is unqualified, corrupt, or a legitimate national security risk, then the default should be confirmation. The current system exists solely to provide senators with more time to grandstand for television, not to ensure good governance.

A Nation That Looks Like a Joke

What happened to Gabbard is not new. The same disgraceful treatment was inflicted upon Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his congressional hearing. Each time, the country is subjected to the same embarrassing circus, and each time the process erodes further.

The Senate should be the world’s greatest deliberative body. Instead, it resembles the Roman Colosseum, where political opponents are dragged in for public execution while the mob—whether on Capitol Hill or in the corporate media—cheers for blood.

If the Senate cannot behave like adults, then it is time to strip them of the ability to play these cynical games. History offers us examples of grandstanding backfiring spectacularly. The 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings, for instance, saw public sympathy shift in his favor as Americans recoiled at the blatant spectacle. Similarly, the failed smear campaign against Robert Bork in 1987 led to a backlash that forever changed how nominees prepare for Senate inquests. When the Senate abandons fairness, the American people notice—and they remember. The American people deserve a government that is serious. What they witnessed yesterday was anything but.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.