The Appointments Clause [of Article II] clearly implies a power of the Senate to give advice on and, if it chooses to do so, to consent to a nomination, but it says nothing about how the Senate should go about exercising that power. The text of the Constitution thus leaves the Senate free to exercise that power however it sees fit. Throughout American history, the Senate has frequently – surely, thousands of times – exercised its power over nominations by declining to act on them.
The correct answer is - The groupthink of the football team made him uncomfortable, but he felt it was more <span>important that there not be dissension before the homecoming game.
Even though the captain of the team knew it was wrong to steal the other team's mascot, he went with this idea anyway because he didn't want to create any disturbance in his own team. He knew that if he rejected their idea there might be problems and dissatisfaction in his team, and he couldn't afford that before the game.
</span>
Judicial and then executive? I believe?
