I’ve been watching with some interest the confirmation hearings of President Cheeto’s latest cabinet. It’s been entertaining watching Senators cackle and shriek their displeasure at the selection of Fox News talking heads set to lead our nation for the next four years.
Whatever you think of the Donald, you’ve got to admit selecting cable news talking heads for cabinet appointments is a pretty slick move optically. They’re used to pithy answers that make a point and then moving on, which is great for hearings like these. And they’ve been on Fox News so they’re used to being yelled at, having their integrity and intelligence insulted and don’t take any of it personally.
There’s just one problem I have with these stupid confirmation hearings in general. They’re faker than professional wrestling. Seriously, the nominees have all met with their respective committee Senators well in advance of the hearings and they have a good idea whether or not someone’s voting for them. No one’s changing their minds based on what answers someone gives in a televised hearing.
It’s performative bullshit. Worse than that, it’s NICE performative bullshit.
Let’s take this Pete Hegseth fella who’s set to be the next Secretary of Defense. Half the attacks on him were over stupid statements he made about not wanting women to serve in combat roles and half were over if he’s gotten shithoused in the past. All of the “nice” questions asked of Hegseth were stupid softball questions about how many push ups he can do or how many rounds fit in a standard M4 rifle magazine.
And Hegseth sits there, smiles, and says nice things to stupid Senators more interested in posturing than actually seeking truth or honest answers.
Wouldn’t it be better if these nominees could just rip into the Senators who asked them stupid questions or insulted them?
Before anyone starts on me about eroding trust in norms or something asinine like that, this is 2025. We’re a post COVID society that’s lost all trust in major institutions anyway. Who says we can’t enjoy the ride while everything slides to the bottom, y’know?
And the Senators who use confirmation hearings as a means to smear someone’s character or integrity have it coming. If you’re going to go after someone who’s nominated for a cabinet position or a judgeship, then you should pretty much expect them to return fire with both barrels verbally.
If nothing else, just think of the ratings gold when we get exchanges like this:
Q: “Mr. Hegseth, will you resign as Secretary of Defense if you are found drinking on the job, which is a 24/7 position?
A: “Senator, will you resign your post and admit to being a stupid grandstanding bitch?”
And you know the Senators who want to can easily play off a nominee’s barbs as them just being mean. “Oh yes, I wanted to say yes but that mean man called me a doodyhead so I’m not sure anymore!” Bite me, asshat, you knew what vote you’d cast before you opened your mouth in that hearing. But if it helps them get victim points and extra votes elsewhere, who cares? The nominee looks tough and the Senator looks brave in the face of adversity.
Everyone wins. Especially that segment of the American populace who seems to think our political class should resemble a season’s worth of Jerry Springer guests.
And those folks seem to be winning a lot lately.
But yes, my point still stands. The confirmation hearings would be so much better if the nominees could tell various Senators exactly what kinds of pieces of shit they are.
Hopefully this happens sometime soon. Who gives a shit about civil government? Let’s get some WWE-style promos back on CSPAN.
Can we Make Confirmation Hearings Entertaining Again?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I’ve often said that while I would never be confirmed for the job, the hearing for my nomination to the federal bench would be AMAZING television.
Senator: “Mr. Jacobs, in 2024 you posted on Facebook that – and I quote – the police could gargle on your hog. What did you mean by that?”
Me: “I’m not sure what you’re not understanding, I meant that those jack-booted thugs could gargle on my hog. Do you not know what ‘hog’ means in that sentence? It means-”
Different Senator: “I think we can work out what it means, Mr. Jacobs.”
This is what I’m talking about!
It literally is impossible to gargle on a dude’s hog. With just the amount of Crisco shortening,I can ride it like a pro, as my husband tells me. He’s better than me at beating the hog, and I mean pro-level Julia Child’s beating a dozen eggs – sans yolks for an omelet. But gargle? Nahhhhhh. Misinformation alert!
Pam Bondi did just what you ask. Apparently it works.
Should trial by combat be part of the process?