Final answer:
Sonia Sotomayor's path to becoming a Supreme Court Justice entailed a multi-step constitutional process including Senate confirmation, reflecting the checks and balances espoused by Madison in Federalist 51. Judicial Nationalism, connected to historical decisions like Marbury v. Madison, is also relevant to the role justices play in shaping the balance of power.
Step-by-step explanation:
Constitutional Process for a Supreme Court Justice Nomination
To become a Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor underwent a constitutional process after her nomination. This process began with a presidential nomination, followed by a background check by the FBI, an evaluation by the American Bar Association, and then multiple hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee then voted on the nomination, and if approved, the nomination proceeded to the full Senate for a debate and a confirmation vote. A simple majority was needed for confirmation.
Demonstration of Madison's Intent in Federalist 51
The process reflects James Madison's intent as outlined in Federalist 51, which advocates for a system of checks and balances and separation of powers between the different branches of government. The Senate's role in confirming Supreme Court Justices serves as a check on the executive branch's power to appoint justices, aligning with Madison's vision of ensuring that no single branch becomes too powerful.
Judicial Nationalism
The concept of Judicial Nationalism is exemplified by the actions of early 19th century Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, under whom the Court strengthened the role of the federal government, particularly in cases like Marbury v. Madison which established the principle of judicial review. The nomination process of Justices like Sotomayor is connected to this history, as each Justice's decisions contribute to the balance of power between the federal and state governments as well as the interpretation of the Constitution.