I was really intrigued by Senator Boisenberg's comment just prior to voting aye:
"I do believe that in the future executive leadership should seek to reward players who are active in their respective ministries with these types of positions."
This school of thought appears to be inconsistent with an aye vote.
I read it as "I'm going to vote 'aye' on this one right now, but in the future, I likely won't."
One interpretation is "My 'nay' vote would make no difference here, so I'm just going to vote 'aye' and avoid the problems that may come with voting against a nominee."
Just an interesting comment.
There is a school of thought that the Senate should consider only the nominee in front of them rather than considering the other potential nominees that were passed over. In a vacuum, do we believe Hezekon is qualified to do this job and will be successful? While I agree to an extent, I do think it is fair to consider the whole field and whether, with reasonable leeway, the nomination makes sense in context. I do not think the Senate should thumb through every possible nominee that wasn't chosen and judge the president's selection against them, as then we get into the uncomfortable situation of demanding why the President didn't choose option B, C, or D, for which there could be various reasons, including some that would be more polite not to share in public. But to consider the field as a whole and to ask, of all possible options, does this seem reasonable? That, in my opinion, should be part of the process.
With due respect to Hezekon, as I believe he is a capable individual, I think this is among the most egregious nominations we've seen in the context of all possible options. While I understand the rationale of the senators who voted "aye" to some degree, with respect to Senator Boisenburg, I do not think you can sternly suggest the president not repeat the same behavior in the future while actively condoning it with your "aye" vote.
