Response:
David A. Strauss & Cass R. Sunstein, On Truisms and Constitutional Obligations: A Response, 71 TEXAS L. REV. 669 (1993).
 

Abstract:
Professors Strauss and Sunstein respond to Professor McGinnis’ criticism of their prior essay on judicial nomination and appointment by disputing his textual construction and arguing that their viewpoints are not as dissimilar as has been stated. On the matter of textual construction, the response claims that Professor McGinnis gives no meaning to the word ‘advise’ and only thus is able to defend his interpretation of the Senate as an inactive and junior partner in the nominations process. Failing to win that argument, Professor McGinnis is left to rally historical arguments about the power of the nomination resting solely with the President, which Professors Strauss and Sunstein do not contest, but which they suggest nonetheless fails to disprove that the Constitution contemplates an independent role for the Senate in the nominations process and that such a role is highly desirable in a period of divided government in which one party holds the Executive branch and its competitor the Legislative.