In fact, Hamilton never imagined that the confirmation process would result in many rejections at all, since the idea was to prevent a president from submitting judicial nominations based on corrupt deals, friendships or patronage. Given the impact on the reputation of any rejected nominee and other factors, Hamilton wrote regarding the senators’ confirmation power, “it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.” That the president had begun the last quarter of his term in office would hardly be considered a “special and strong” reason.

Hamilton did not conceive of a day when warring between political parties would virtually stop the passage of legislation and confirmations. Rather, he thought the ignominy of arbitrarily rejecting qualified candidates would keep the Senate in check. “The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate; aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the Executive,” he wrote.

Because of that misplaced faith in the power of shame, Hamilton did not consider the possibility that senators would conspire to twist the advise-and-consent provision into a purely political device to cripple the judiciary. He did consider the possibility, however, that senators would secretly and corruptly conspire with the president on nominations, an idea he dismissed based on his belief in basic integrity. “This supposition of universal venalty in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude,” he wrote. “The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence.”