We’ve all seen it happen at least since Nixon tried to get Clement Haynsworth appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate committee refused to pass his nomination on to the full Senate.

The appointee has to go to a Senate hearing in front of the cameras and answer any and all questions put to him by those Senators to their satisfaction.

After the show they take a committee vote to either send the nomination to the floor so the full Senate can vote on the nominee or they don’t pass the nominee and the president (either party) has to find someone else.

Is this what the constitution means by “advise and consent”? Or did they mean the nominees should possibly stand in the well of the Senate and be questioned by all the Senators (the advice part) and then vote the nominee up or down? (The consent part.)

I honestly don’t know if the constitution says how it should be done or how it was done in the past. Perhaps David or Big Mo or someone else who knows our history better than I can answer this question, because it seems if 19 Senators can make a decision for the entire Senate, that’s not the intent of the constitution.

Then again, I could be all wet on this one.