This past week’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh revealed a lot about the health – or lack thereof – of the United States Senate’s process for providing (or not) advice and consent to the President in his nominations to the federal judiciary. High court nominee hearings have long been a dishonest circus, and every time they get worse. This week, I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if politicians had to be subjected to such a process. I think there’s a lot we could learn. And with that fantasy in my mind, I have a few questions for our two senators (and our one would-be senator) regarding the hearing on Judge Kavanaugh specifically and the process generally.

Senator Cortez-Masto, on the first day of the hearing, your Democratic colleagues interrupted and/or otherwise tried to talk over the proceedings 76 times, mostly to ask that the hearings be postponed. Knowing that no committee meeting can function with nearly endless interruptions of that type, and knowing that the point had been made and the request would not be granted, do you approve of your colleagues’ futilely rude histrionics? Do you believe all Senate committees should be run this way? If/when Republicans are in the minority in the future, would you condone similar behavior from them? Are you troubled that less than a week after the death of Senator John McCain resulted in endless paeans to civil discourse and bipartisanship, members of your party are acting so… pointlessly uncivil? Do you regret that Harry Reid changed the Senate rules to make it harder for a party in the minority to air their concerns over Supreme Court nominees?

Congresswoman Rosen, 73 activists were arrested this week for standing up and shouting during the hearing in an attempt not to be heard, but to silence others. The right to free speech does not provide one with a heckler’s veto. Obviously, such disruptions do not serve to foster meaningful deliberation, and if such a practice were tolerated and became common, no Senate business could ever be done. Do you have the courage to denounce these people and their attempts to subvert a meaningful debate, even if it disappoints some of the more radical fringes of your political base?

Senator Heller, thousands of documents related to Judge Kavanaugh’s time with the Bush administration were released the day before the hearing, and thousands more remain dubiously classified. Ridiculous grandstanding aside, can you appreciate that this is fundamentally unfair to your colleagues, and makes it look as though there really is something to hide? Do you think those documents ought to have been released sooner, especially as ones that have been released actually paint Judge Kavanaugh in an even more positive light than before? If you were to be re-elected, would you push for greater (and earlier) transparency in these matters?

Senator Cortez-Masto, you have declined to say how you intend to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, but you did call for the hearing to be delayed so those documents could be reviewed. Although you raise a fair concern, thousands of pages of directly relevant documents – including over 300 written opinions – have long been available to you. Can you honestly claim to have read and reviewed every single one of those opinions, or every other document that was previously released? And with respect to the newly released material, do you honestly expect to find some mustache-twirling, disqualifying smoking gun there, no matter how much time you might take to pore over them?

Congresswoman Rosen, you have previously demonstrated that you don’t understand what the role of an Article III judge is in our Constitutional system. If elected, you will be in a position to vet those nominees, not just for the Supreme Court, but also for hundreds of lower courts vacancies as well. What have you done to further educate yourself so that you could more effectively fulfill your Constitutional duties, rather than simply opposing nominees based on partisan tribalism as your Twitter feed currently suggests?

Senator Heller, George W. Bush famously and fortuitously had a SCOTUS nominee (Harriet Miers) thwarted by his fellow Republicans because their independent review made clear she would have been less than optimal as a Supreme Court justice. You enthusiastically endorsed Judge Kavanaugh almost immediately upon his nomination. While I agree that he’s an excellent pick, did you conduct an independent investigation into his qualifications, independence, and judicial philosophy? What makes you certain that Judge Kavanaugh will not be unduly deferential to the executive branch generally or to Donald Trump specifically?

Senator Cortez Masto, as an attorney, I trust you understand that a judge’s duty is to rule according to what the law is, and not what he might wish the law to be. In a recent interview, you raised vague concerns about Judge Kavanaugh’s “positions” on “women’s health care, net neutrality, worker’s rights, and LGBT rights.” Can you be more specific? Can you point to a single instance in more than 300 written opinions where Judge Kavanaugh has clearly ignored binding precedent, statute, or constitutional provision to reach a policy position you believe he preferred instead? Although partisans on both sides have for far too long actively cultivated the public misperception that judges should be policy makers, do you feel any responsibility as an attorney to help educate the public on what judges actually do (or are supposed to do), even if that detracts from the inaccurate political narrative your party is attempting to promote? You are a smart woman and experienced lawyer, and no doubt recognize Judge Kavanaugh as the supremely well qualified nominee that he is – surely you cannot be considering voting against him merely because it’s an election year? If your answer includes “But Merrick Garland!”, are you in the “two wrongs DO make a right” school of civic leadership?

Congresswoman Rosen, you have intimated on your Twitter feed that you believe a Justice Kavanaugh would be “against healthcare” and that Roe v. Wade would be quickly overturned. Do you honestly believe that Brett Kavanaugh is an evil human being who is literally opposed to sick people receiving treatment, or that he is somehow “anti-woman” in spite of all evidence to the contrary? Because no sane person actually thinks this (and you are no doubt sane), wouldn’t you agree that a true leader would avoid such absurdly dishonest and divisive hyperbole? Even if you honestly think Judge Kavanaugh would interpret ambiguous laws (or constitutional provisions) in a way that you think would harm your constituents, wouldn’t you agree that it’s more democratic to clarify those laws via the Article I process than for any judge to simply legislate from the bench?

***

The current process of “advice and consent” is an embarrassing farce, and has been since at least the name “Bork” became a verb. If we wish to retain an independent judiciary – and our Republic and our individual liberties require it – we desperately need more adult leaders in the Senate who can answer questions like this in a satisfactory manner.

Orrin Johnson has been writing and commenting on Nevada and national politics since 2007. He started with an independent blog, First Principles, and was a regular columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal from 2015-2016. By day, he is a deputy district attorney for Carson City. His opinions here are his own. Follow him on Twitter @orrinjohnson, or contact him at [email protected].