Channels, Fall 2019

Page 22 Wilt • It Wasn’t Supposed to be Easy Another important aspect to consider comes from those who opposed the Constitution, many of whom were considered Anti-Federalists. Virginia Delegate George Mason refused at the close of the Constitutional Convention to sign his name to the Committee of Style report, which demonstrated that he opposed the drafted Constitution (Mason, Gunston Hall). In a letter printed for the public on November 22, 1787 in the Virginia Journal, George Mason wrote of the appointment power by saying, “From this fatal defect has arisen the improper power of the Senate in the appointment of public officers, and the alarming dependence and connection between that branch of the legislature and the supreme Executive” (Mason, Gunston Hall).. Mason seems to suggest that he objects to the active Senate role that the Founders installed for the appointment power. This objection to the Senate’s power indicates that the Founders collectively understood at least in some level the active power the Senate had in its advice and consent power. Both Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin refused to sign the Constitution in support of its ratification. One of their main objections centered around the dual-appointment mode of the Supreme Court nominations. In the appointment power, Randolph opposed the inclusion of the president as that would necessarily lead to the increase in his powers (Marcotte 533). Luther Martin also refused to sign the Constitution, but he feared the lack of a check on the president in the appointment process (Marcotte 534). These two declarations alone indicate that there was favor in the utilization of an active Senate in the appointments process for the Supreme Court. James Wilson, who was argued to be the inventor of the modern presidency, “objected to the mode of appointing, as blending a branch of the Legislature with the Executive” was a mistake in his eyes (Farrand 538, Vol. II). Wilson believed that “there can be no good Executive without a responsible appointment of officers to execute” (Farrand 530, Vol. II). Gouverneur Morris also understood the complexity of the Senate’s advice and consent check against the president. In contrast to James Wilson’s comments, Morris stated, “As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security” (Farrand 530, Vol. II). Morris indicates that there is a dual mode of appointing individuals to the Supreme Court, of which the U.S. Senate would be an active participant. Historic Analysis & Case Studies An early version of Senate opposition to a judicial nominee to the Supreme Court came early in the nascent country’s history under President George Washington. John Rutledge—a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a signer to the U.S. Constitution—was originally appointed by President George Washington to the Supreme Court in 1789 to be an Associate Justice. He served from 1789 to 1791 before resigning to serve as South Carolina’s Chief Justice for the state supreme court (Harris 42-3). Chief Justice John Jay announced his resignation (Harris 42-3). When he heard of the open position to serve as the Chief Justice, John Rutledge wrote George Washington “a letter remarkable letter…applying for the Supreme Court appointment” (Harris 43). President Washington promptly offered him the position (Harris 43). However, prior to his appointment, Rutledge spoke publicly at a Charleston event, decrying the Jay Treaty which normalized trading relations with former colonizer, Great Britain (Harris 43). Many viewed Rutledge as mentally deranged with “eyewitness testimony” to his speech in South Carolina against the Jay Treaty cited as a proof of this claim (Ross 642). Some attributed his mental insanity