Customer Reviews

Seeking Justices: The Judging Of Supreme Court Nominees

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is one of a slew of recent books focusing upon the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices. The author, an associate professor of political science, argues that the current process, while not perfect, is neither as ineffectual as some critics allege or as destructive of judicial independence as other observers contend. To assess the current process, the author discusses the history of the selection process; the intended constitutional role of the Senate in the process (i.e., is ideology fair game?); and the record regarding confirmation hearings. The author disputes that the process is overpoliticized, which he attributes to the inaccurate images of the Bork and Thomas hearings. Rather, the key determinant is the professional qualifications of the nominee, his ethical views, and whether his constitutional philosophy is in the mainstream. The book contains the results of a survey the author conducted of experts that concluded there has not been an erosion in the quality of recent Justices. A most interesting chapter on the Thomas nomination is included, which was a mess largely due to an indecisive Judiciary Committee handling of the Anita Hill issue. The author also discusses whether nominees are scrutinized too much, or not enough. A solid discussion of the Rehnquist court is employed to argue that a ideologically conservative court does not necessarily go off in bizarre directions, but remains largely in the mainstream. In short, for the most part, the current selection process the author contends is in fairly robust good health. The analysis is supported by 58 pages of helpful notes and an extremely valuable bibliography of sources on this issue. While perhaps a bit overly sanguine about the current process, nonetheless a thoughtful discussion of this vital issue.