The withdrawal of Congressman Matt Gaetz from consideration for attorney general is a moment to mark — such occasions always  needed — the wisdom of the Framers. The Constitution ordains that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … all other Officers of the United States.” The appointment of high officers is a duet not a solo, and the Senate has had — if informally — its say. 

While Mr. Gaetz’s suitability for the job did not come to an up or down vote, it appears as if the prospect of confirmation was dim enough that the Floridian thought the better part of valor was to bow out now. Some will paint that as a defeat for President Trump, but it is more accurately a victory for the constitutional process. By all accounts, Trump appears to be accepting the rebuff, and has nominated Pam Bondi. 

Mr. Gaetz was not only a polarizing choice, but a risky one, an equal opportunity provocateur who earned the enmity of many solons on both sides of the aisle. While the Department of Justice elected not to bring charges, the House Ethics Committee conducts its own investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Press reports suggested that such accusations could snowball. 

It made no sense to us for the nomination of Mr. Gaetz to proceed without the disclosure to the public — and the Senate — of the Ethics Committee’s report. Absent that, it really would have been a pig in a poke. Once the committee declined to make its findings, if any, public, our view is that the nomination of Mr. Gaetz was doomed. The Senate wanted answers, too, even after Mr. Gaetz resigned his seat in the House.

When Mr. Gaetz was nominated we called it as a “moment for the Senate” and predicted that “the upper chamber’s constitutional duty to ‘advise and consent’ will loom brightly in the months ahead.” Before the election there was much handwringing over the prospects for American democracy and the specter of fascism. The affaire d’Gaetz discloses that, at least when it comes to the upper chamber, the constitutional machinery is operating in fine fettle.

The Senate’s job is not finished. Lawmakers could have pointed questions for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard about her stances on say, Russia and Syria and the erstwhile Fox News host Peter Hegseth about his comportment. Republicans have shown, though, that they are no rubber stamps. The give and take between president and Senate aims to get at a rough kind of checked consensus. Mr. Gaetz’s defeat is a win for the Constitution.

Yet the drama of Mr. Gaetz or the nomination of Ms. Bondi fails to resolve the big question that hangs on the attorney general. The question is whether Trump intends to sic federal prosecutors on those who used the justice system against him these past four years. We see the politicization of the DOJ under President Biden and Attorney General Garland as one of the great scandals in American political history and oppose a repeat.

Far better for Trump to seek retribution in his success — at repairing the economy — renewing his 2017 tax cuts, deregulating wherever possible, and reforming the monetary system with an honest dollar. If  Trump can do that while also defusing the wars that erupted on Mr. Biden’s watch, it would give the 47th president the kind of retribution he really needs and secure a legacy of which he, and his countrymen, can be proud.