Congressional “advice and consent” as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution began this week as hearings started for President-elect Trump’s nominees for several key Cabinet positions. What became clear almost from the beginning of the first hearing is that while consent of Congress is still a critical check on executive branch power, the advice of our elected officials about who should fill important government positions is of considerably less value.

So, should we drop the “advice” part of advice and consent? Polling data indicate that congressional approval ratings are as low as 19 percent. Americans take a dim view of the way Congress is doing its job, and yet its members claim the ability to advise the president on how his Cabinet picks should do theirs.

Advice should be sought not only from those who are equipped to give it, but from those who follow it themselves, and lead by example. The stunning hypocrisy on display during the hearings this week demonstrated not only a lack of leadership but a lack of shame.

“Sitting here today are you aware of any factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith?” Senator Schiff of California asked the prospective attorney general, Pam Bondi. It was an astonishing question, given that Mr. Schiff repeatedly lied to the American public during President Trump’s first term by saying he had personally seen evidence of the president’s collusion with Russia.

That “evidence” ignited a lengthy investigation that concluded with the disclosure that there was never any “predicate” to pursue the false charge against Trump in the first place. It was as if Mr. Schiff had no idea that elected officials such as himself, who so repulsed the American public with their shameless behavior, were part of the reason that Trump was swept back into office.

Swept, that is, back into office and again empowered to appoint people like Ms. Bondi. If a single American forgot for a moment why he or she voted the Democrats out of power, Mr. Schiff, executing his congressional responsibility to offer “advice” on presidential appointments, reminded them.

Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, in questioning the president-elect’s nominee to be defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, showed great reverence for the United States Armed Forces before suggesting that Mr. Hegseth wasn’t financially responsible enough to hold such a critical position.

If only Mr. Blumenthal had possessed this same level of respect for the military when he claimed over a period of 12 years that he had served in Vietnam. He later had to admit that he had never left American soil during the war.

Advice should also be offered to serve others, not oneself. “I would actually ask you personally to read this Economist magazine article,” Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island said as he held aloft a copy of the publication and pretended to be making a useful recommendation to the nominee to be treasury secretary, Scott Bessent.

Unfortunately for the senator, Mr. Bessent reminded him, out loud, that he had already recommended the article during a private meeting in Mr. Whitehouse’s office and that Mr. Bessent had, in fact, read it. We are supposed to believe that the senator was so committed to his responsibility to offer “advice” that he did so twice, the second time for the cameras.

The cameras are ultimately the point. They turn “advice” hour into an American circus. The best stewards of the responsibility to “advise” may be the ones who don’t even bother to try, and instead simply accuse nominees of being puppets or the kinds of people who are willing to shoot protestors in the legs.

At least these shrill senators aren’t trying to fool anyone. That the other members of Congress think they might be is the biggest indictment of their capacity to offer “advice” — and a clear sign that no one has learned a thing from the last election.