Judicial Nominations (Supreme Court)

This new edition of this classic history of the Supreme Court discusses the selection, nomination, and appointment of each of the Justices who have sat on the U.S. Supreme Court since 1789. Abraham provides a fascinating account of the presidential motivations behind each nomination, examining how each appointee's performance on the bench fulfilled, or disappointed, presidential expectations.

Norman Vieira and Leonard Gross provide an in-depth analysis of the political and legal framework surrounding the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees. President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court met with a fierce opposition that was apparent in his confirmation hearings, which were different in many ways from those of any previous nominee. This behind-the-scenes view of the politics and personalities involved in the Bork confirmation controversy provides a framework for future debates regarding the confirmation process. To help establish that framework, Vieira and Gross examine the similarities as well as the differences between the Bork confirmation battle and other confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court nominees.

Smith introduces a new concept, "critical judicial nominations," to advance scholars' understanding of the consequences of the federal nomination process for the Supreme Court and the American political system. The study suggests that specific events related to the judicial branch, namely "critical judicial nominations," have significant unanticipated consequences for the Supreme Court's role in the political system, as well as for electoral politics. This is demonstrated in illustrative historical examples which, most importantly, include an in-depth case study of the Clarence Thomas nomination and its subsequent ramifications.

Can the Supreme Court be free of politics? Do we want it to be? Normative constitutional theory has long concerned itself with the legitimate scope and limits of judicial review. Too often, theorists seek to resolve that issue by eliminating politics from constitutional decisionmaking. In contrast, Terri Peretti argues for an openly political role for the Supreme Court. Peretti asserts that politically motivated constitutional decisionmaking is not only inevitable, it is legitimate and desirable as well. When Supreme Court justices decide in accordance with their ideological values, or consider the likely political reaction to the Court's decisions, a number of benefits result. The Court's performance of political representation and consensus-building functions is enhanced, and the effectiveness of political checks on the Court is increased. Thus, political motive in constitutional decision making does not lead to judicial tyranny, as many claim, but goes far to prevent it. Using pluralist theory, Peretti further argues that a political Court possesses instrumental value in American democracy. As one of many diverse and redundant political institutions, the Court enhances both system stability and the quality of policymaking, particularly regarding the breadth of interests represented.

Perry offers a detailed look at the impact of religion, race, and gender on appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, and places the factors that have influenced presidential decisions into their historical and political contexts. Analyses of the appointments of eight Catholics, five Jews, one black, and one woman reveal a history of decision-making based on the recognition of specific groups. Perry draws on numerous sources, including interviews with seven Court members, in addressing the question of whether "representative" factors should play a role in nominating justices.