I must admit I was surprised to learn that both U.S. senators from Wisconsin had defied party leadership and decided to recommend John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Thursday. After months of national debate and weeks of Senate hearings, I knew Roberts would pass through the Judiciary Committee having gained the support he needed. I failed to predict that Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl would have been two of three democrats — they were joined by Vermont's Patrick Leahy — to help him on his way.

My next surprise was realizing how much sense Messrs. Feingold and Kohl's decision made given the political climate in which they are operating.

Despite what recent rhetoric suggested, the Senate held relatively little power in the nominating process. The power to determine Supreme Court Justices resides almost exclusively in Article Two. The only bone the Constitution even throws the Legislature in this enterprise is that of "advice and consent."

Unsurprisingly, Democrats, aided by hundreds of political interest groups, exercised this power to its fullest extent, offering advice about filling the judicial post immediately after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor vacated it. President Bush's selection of Mr. Roberts indicated some of those advising voices were heard. Mr. Bush's choice of Mr. Roberts quieted opposition just enough to allow his portrait of the Chief Justice-to-be to dominate during the nomination process.

Consequently, Mr. Roberts' name became synonymous with "Harvard," "Editor of the Law Review," and "magna cum laude." His resume revealed he was smart, but his handling of the Senate Judiciary Committee proved it. By smoothly refusing every invitation to specify his method of interpretation, or specific beliefs on the most contentious issues, Mr. Roberts insulated himself. He skillfully skirted issues like abortion, the constitutional right to privacy and affirmative action and in doing so, gave Senate opposition little on which to comment. Democrats were left to echo the administration's description of a smart and well-qualified nominee or complain about his ability to evade their attempts at interrogation. So in short, with little ability to advise against Mr. Roberts, Sens. Feingold and Kohl moved dutifully to consent.

The tone of their statements to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter was one of both resentment and hope — an interesting and unlikely pairing, but perfectly suited for this situation nonetheless.

Undoubtedly, the senators resent that their constitutional role in the nomination process resembles a rubber stamp more than a veto. But they recognized the limitations of our separation of powers, and the protections granted by executive and attorney/client privilege, and stayed within their boundaries.

These congressmen demonstrated a respect for their constitutionally defined "advice and consent" roles and now have no option but to hope that others will do the same.

We can hope that soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts will respect his responsibilities to the Constitution and the American people, and evaluate each case with the supposed moderation and irrefutable judicious skill we are told he possesses. We can hope the next Supreme Court nominee will be well-suited for the post. If not, we trust the Senate will respect Messrs. Kohl and Feingold's precedent of abandoning party line, offering advice, and if necessary, denying consent when the constitution's preservation demands it.

When Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, heard about the Judiciary Committee vote, he called it "a defeat for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the protections that ordinary Americans value." I disagree — sort of.

The Judiciary Committee did its job — offered advice and gave its consent. Next week, all the members of the Senate will undoubtedly do the same. The Constitution is still intact and John Roberts' nomination is secure. As for the "Bill of Rights and the protections that ordinary Americans value"? Well, we'll just have to follow Messrs. Feingold and Kohl's lead and "hope."

Sarah Howard ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.