When an attorney general nominee is questioned about his loyalty to the president who appointed him, and an intelligence-director nominee repeatedly declines to say who won the 2020 election, what do the founding documents and religious traditions say about what the Senate's "advice and consent" is actually for?
Hamilton named the purpose of Senate confirmation in <em>Federalist No. 76</em>: a check against appointments made from "personal attachment." That is the exact question a hearing asks when it probes whether an attorney general nominee who was the president's personal lawyer will maintain the Justice Department's independence in individual cases, or whether an intelligence nominee will report what the evidence shows when the answer is unwelcome. Religious traditions frame the same test more bluntly: Jethro told Moses to choose judges who "fear God" rather than men, and Deuteronomy instructs the judge not to "be afraid of the face of man." Presidents are entitled to appointees who share their goals, and prior association with a president is not disqualifying. What advice and consent exists to determine is narrower and more important — whether this particular officer, in the particular decisions where the law requires independence, would be willing to say no. The Senate is the body the Constitution assigned that judgment to. Whether it still exercises it is the question each of these hearings puts on the record.
Religious perspectives
Religious traditions are unusually specific about the qualifications for those who hold judgment over others — and the qualities they name are almost entirely about independence from the person who appointed them.
Judaism: Jethro's counsel to Moses on selecting judges is the foundational text: choose "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness" (Exodus 18:21). The rabbinic tradition read "men of truth" as requiring independence — a judge who decides based on what is true rather than what pleases. Deuteronomy's instruction to judges — "you shall not respect persons in judgment... you shall not be afraid of the face of man" (Deuteronomy 1:17) — makes the point explicit: the officer who fears the powerful cannot administer justice.
Christianity: The pastoral epistles set qualifications for those in positions of authority that emphasize character over allegiance: "blameless... not self-willed, not soon angry... a lover of good men, sober, just, holy" (Titus 1:7-8). The tradition's long insistence that ecclesial office is a trust rather than a favor — and its repeated struggles against the practice of appointing loyalists — has direct application to civil office.
Islam: The Quran commands: "Indeed, God commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice" (4:58). Classical Islamic jurisprudence on the qualifications of the qadi (judge) emphasized independence from the appointing authority as a condition of legitimate judgment, and treated the judge who ruled to please a ruler as having forfeited the office's legitimacy.
The shared insight: Across traditions, the disqualifying quality in someone who holds judgment is not incompetence but dependence — the officer whose decisions will follow the wishes of the person who can remove him. Every tradition's test for such an appointment is the same question: would this person tell the appointing authority no?
Constitutional & legal framework
The Appointments Clause makes the Senate a genuine participant in staffing the executive branch — a design choice the founders explained in unusual detail.
The text: Article II, §2 provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." The Senate's role is not ceremonial; it is a check written into the appointment of every principal officer.
What the founders said: In Federalist No. 76, Hamilton explained the purpose directly: the requirement of Senate confirmation "would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity." The phrase "personal attachment" names precisely the concern raised in a confirmation hearing about a nominee's loyalty to the president.
The July 2026 hearings: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — previously the president's personal defense attorney — appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 15, 2026, for confirmation as attorney general. Questioning covered the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files, criminal cases brought against the president's critics, the immigration enforcement campaign, and the $1.8 billion settlement fund the department is still litigating. The central theme was whether Blanche would maintain the Justice Department's traditional independence from White House direction in individual cases. Separately, Jay Clayton, nominated as Director of National Intelligence, was repeatedly asked by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who won the 2020 presidential election. Clayton said he was not an election denier and that Joe Biden was "certified" as president, but declined to state directly that Biden won.
Why the 2020 question is a confirmation question: The Director of National Intelligence oversees the assessment of foreign election interference and the integrity of intelligence provided to policymakers. A nominee's willingness to state a factual conclusion that has been affirmed by every recount, audit, court challenge, and the nominee's own prospective agency is not a partisan gotcha; it is a direct test of whether the nominee will report what the evidence shows when the answer is unwelcome. Senators of both parties have historically treated that as within the scope of advice and consent.
The changed math: Senator Lindsey Graham died on July 11, 2026, of an aortic dissection; South Carolina's governor appointed his sister, Darline Graham, to serve the remainder of the term. The Judiciary Committee is now composed of 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, meaning a single Republican defection would stall the Blanche nomination in committee.
The honest other side: Presidents are entitled to appoint officials who share their policy priorities, and every administration staffs the executive branch with people it trusts — this is normal and constitutionally proper. A nominee's prior service as the president's personal attorney is not automatically disqualifying; several attorneys general have had prior relationships with the presidents who appointed them. The Senate's role is to make a judgment, not to require independence from the president's policy agenda. The question is narrower: whether the nominee would maintain independence in the specific decisions — individual prosecutions, intelligence assessments — where the law and long practice require it.
See: Article II, §2 (Appointments Clause) → | Federalist No. 76 →
Sources cited:BibleConstitutionFederalist Papers