The problem undertaken is a study of the Senate's right to refuse confirmation of presidential nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States and its interpretation of this constitutional prerogative today. A case study of the nomination and rejection of Abe Fortas is used to illustrate the contemporary role of the Senate and to serve as a basis for predictions for future nominations.

The topic of this thesis is nomination of justices of the Supreme Court, the highest federal court in the United States. The Constitution gives the power to appoint new federal justices to the president, with "advice and consent" of the Senate. This clause is based on one of the primary constitutional principles used in the United States - the system of checks and balances. The first part describes the general aspects of all nominations, from court vacancies to the final vote on Senate floor. The primary roles of the president and the Senate are defined. Focus is also set on the evolution of the nomination process throughout the history, as well as the criteria for selecting new justices, who shape the constitutional development of one of the oldest functioning democracies. The structure of the first part is then applied for a description of the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump in 2018. The course of this nomination was strongly affected by sexual assault accusations against the nominee and fierce partisan battles that resulted in the closest confirmation vote in history. The final part applies quantitative research methods to discover the influence of partisan difference between the president and the Senate majority on the...