So in other words you are making no comment on whether they should or should not have abided by the constitution?
As for the appointment issue itself, tell me - what happens when a new government forms and three new branches are created, yet by the very same document that forms those three branches, a power is given to one of the branches that allows them to impede another of the branches from taking office?
I wouldn't know. When the founding fathers were faced with that very same dilemma they chose to abide by the Constitution. Rather than looking at is as a matter of one branch impeding another they saw it as three branches working together to ensure that one branch did not become to powerful. They had a term for it, a System of Checks and Balances. They had a term for what the confederates chose to do, too. Tyranny.
That is simply not so, non-seq.
Davis and the confederate congress conspired to eliminate an entire branch of government. A branch required by the same document that they claim to get their authority from. What other term for it can there be but violation? The confederate constitution was there, ratified by all the states that the congressmen and senators pretended to represent. I assume that the state conventions did read the document before they ratified it so obviously not a single state objected to the idea of a supreme court or three branches of government. What gave the representatives the right to ignore the wishes of the states? If they objected to the concept so much then the means were there to amend the constitution and remove the offending part. Or was that a paradox, too? To use the constitutional means of amending the constitution to remove a section of the constitution that you chose to violate in the first place? Too hard. Much easier to ignore the constitution in the first place.
Don't play stupid, Non-Seq. If one branch's appointment is contingent upon the approval of another, and that other branch does not approve of the appointment, no appointment can legally occur. It's a constitutional paradox that, like it or not, happens to exist.
Davis and the confederate congress conspired to eliminate an entire branch of government.
I'll admittedly have to search the records of debates on that, but it is my understanding that significant animosity occurred between the congress and Davis, with those who opposed the court's appointment in the Senate being among the most vocal opponents of Davis's administration. I don't think anyone could ever reasonably call that "conspiring." Do you?
GOPCap is right about this, as usual. I found the following in Davis' "State of the Union" address to the Confederate Congress on Feb 26, 1862:
I invite the attention of Congress to the duty of organizing a supreme court of the Confederate States, in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution.