The Constitutional Convention considered at least three alternative options to the final Appointments Clause: (1) placing the power in the president alone, (2) in the legislature alone, (3) in the legislature with the president’s advice and consent.
On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts
The convention SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED and REJECTED and enshrined in the Constitution THEY RATIFIED that a supermajority was NOT required. They specified in that ratified documents the specific times a supermajority is required. No amendment to that Constitution has been ratified, so simple majority stands as The Law for presidential appointment. See two other articles in post#37 for the rest of the argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1406147/posts?page=37#37
Thanks for the info. Excuse me for being government school educated. So, in summary, simple majority is the default unless otherwise stated.