vyelkin posted:

There is no actual responsibility inherent in the Constitution's requirement that the Senate provide "Advice and Consent" to presidential appointees, and they can just flat out decide to ignore that if they want to. Good to know. See, it's interesting because "shall nominate" and "shall appoint" implies that the president himself has an obligation to make nominations (in Canada there was actually a court case on that exact wording because the Canadian constitution says the Prime Minister "shall" appoint senators and the Prime Minister said he wasn't going to, so someone sued saying he was violating the constitution), but the exact wording of the article doesn't make that same distinction for the Senate.