Channels, Fall 2019

Channels • 2019 • Volume 4 • Number 1 Page 3 Appointments Clause specifically and cared deeply about the distribution of the appointment power. Therefore, a proper understanding and review of what the Founders originally intended for the Senate’s role in the Supreme Court confirmation process will be both pertinent and beneficial to the overall discussion on the Senate’s advice and consent function. Many individuals have developed various theories surrounding this subject. Some argue for a more passive and deferential Senate; one that will support the President’s nominee if he or she is highly qualified and within the mainstream of judicial thought (McMillion, 5-6; Olson, 9-23; Ross, 681). Others advocate for a more robust and active Senate that seeks a thorough evaluation of the nominee’s background, qualifications, judicial temperance, and judicial philosophies (Sklamberg, 461; Ross, 639; Gauch, 340-1; Kasper, 550). Some even argue that the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold a full- body Senate vote on the nominee (e.g., President’s Obama, Bush, Jr.). These viewpoints will be discussed at length during the literature review. Therefore, various questions will guide the research project to conclude how the Founders’ originally intended for the Senate to act during the Supreme Court confirmation process. First, what did the Founders intend for the Senate’s role in the Supreme Court confirmation process as developed through the Constitutional Convention proceedings and other manuscripts like the Federalist Papers? Second, how did the Framers’ view on human nature, and the original election method for U.S. Senators affect the Framers’ view on the Senate’s role? Third, should the Senate defer to the President’s nomination and only consider their professional qualifications, or is the Senate afforded certain discretionary powers under the guise of the Appointments Clause to use the candidate’s professional qualifications, partisan politics, and constitutional philosophies of the candidate for evaluation? And finally, is the Senate constitutionally obligated to evaluate the nominee and hold a full-body vote on the candidate? The Founders — as according to their understanding of human natures, early manuscripts, proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, and early development of the Supreme Court confirmation process — originally intended for the Senate’s role to be one of actively offering advice to the President on which candidate to nominate to the Supreme Court. The Senate was expected to evaluate the President’s nominee in a manner in which the Senate chooses, in the Senate’s timetable, and under the guise of its established procedures —which allowed for the review of professional qualifications, partisan considerations, and judicial philosophy. The electorate changed the original Senate election method, which provided for a degree of separation between the Senate and the American electorate, to direct election of senators by the electorate, thereby inaugurating a new level of partisanship into the Supreme Court confirmation processes. Moreover, the legitimacy of the judiciary has been called into question as a result. Ultimately, the Founders intended for the Senate to hold a vote on the Supreme Court nominee. Literature Review Understanding the Senate’s advice and consent role within the scope of the Appointments Clause has been an issue of constitutional matter since its inception at the Constitutional Convention. As the records show in the Constitutional Convention, the Founders constantly disagreed on the best branch of government to position the appointment power and to what extent that power reached