Senate’s consent role isn’t often stormy

WASHINGTON (AP ) – The Senat e is cranking up its advice and consent machine again as the Judi – ciary Committee prepares to consider t h e n omi n ation of Sa ndr a Da y O’Connor to th e Suprem e Court. The outcome, as usual, is pretty well as su re d . Mr s. O’Conno r is expected to be asked more th an th e usual nu mber of question s. But in th e end, she is expected to be recommende d for confirmation and confirme d by the full Senate . The process has been the subject of debate ever since th e Constitu tional Convent ion of 1778. It was denounc ed as a “rubberstam p” as recently as 1977. But it su rvives wit h little change . Article II of the Constitut ion gives the president the power to appoint the principal officers of the federal governme nt “by an d with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The prov ision itse lf was a compromise . Some delegates to the Con stitu tio nal Convention wanted to give the Senate the power to ma ke the appointme nt s. Others wanted the president to have it . The result left the standa rds for confirmation vague, as they remai n today. Alexander Ham ilton wrote in The Federa list that, “If an ill appointment should be made, the executive , for nominating, and the Senate, for approving, would partici pate, thoug h in different degrees, in the opprobr ium and disgrace.” According to a st udy by Common Cause, a group which monitors the government on beha lf of what it considers the public interest, the Senate received 133,302 nominat ions