What do you think?
Rate this book
Making the Supreme Court: The Politics of Appointments, 1930-2020
Appointments to the United States Supreme Court are now central events in American political life. Every vacancy unleashes a bitter struggle between Republicans and Democrats over nominees; and once the seat is filled, new justices typically vote in predictable ways. However, this has not always been the case. As late as the middle of the twentieth century, presidents invested little time and effort in finding and vetting nominees, often selecting personal cronies, who senators briskly confirmed. Media coverage was desultory, public opinion was largely non-existent, and the justices often voted independently and erratically.
In Making the Supreme Court , Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec examine 90 years of American political history to show how the growth of federal judicial power from the 1930s onward inspired a multitude of groups struggling to shape judicial policy. Over time, some groups moved beyond lobbying the Court to changing who sits on it. Other groups formed expressly to influence appointments. These activists and organized groups penetrated the national party system so that after about 1980, presidential candidates increasingly pledged to select and confirm nominees who conformed to specific policy and ideological litmus tests. Once in office, these presidents re-shaped the executive selection system to deliver on their promises. Moreover, the selection process for justices turned into media events, often fueled by controversy. As Cameron and Kastellec argue, the result is a new politics aimed squarely at selecting and placing judicial ideologues on the Court. They make the case
that this new model gradually transformed how the Court itself operates, turning it into an ideologically driven and polarized branch. Based on rich data and qualitative evidence, Making the Supreme Court provides a sharp lens on the social and political transformations that created a new American politics.
In Making the Supreme Court , Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec examine 90 years of American political history to show how the growth of federal judicial power from the 1930s onward inspired a multitude of groups struggling to shape judicial policy. Over time, some groups moved beyond lobbying the Court to changing who sits on it. Other groups formed expressly to influence appointments. These activists and organized groups penetrated the national party system so that after about 1980, presidential candidates increasingly pledged to select and confirm nominees who conformed to specific policy and ideological litmus tests. Once in office, these presidents re-shaped the executive selection system to deliver on their promises. Moreover, the selection process for justices turned into media events, often fueled by controversy. As Cameron and Kastellec argue, the result is a new politics aimed squarely at selecting and placing judicial ideologues on the Court. They make the case
that this new model gradually transformed how the Court itself operates, turning it into an ideologically driven and polarized branch. Based on rich data and qualitative evidence, Making the Supreme Court provides a sharp lens on the social and political transformations that created a new American politics.
504 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2023
2 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 4, 2024
I have once again decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2024 US Presidential Election. This was a great success as I prepared for 2020, with an outcome at the polls (and antics by both candidates up to Inauguration Day) that only a fiction writer might have come up with at the time! Many of these will focus on actors and events intricately involved in the US political system over the last few years, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.
With the events of July 21, 2024, when Joe Biden chose not to seek re-election, the challenge has become harder to properly reflect the Democratic side. I will do the best I can to properly prepare and offer up books that can explore the Biden Administration, as well as whomever takes the helm into November.
This is Book #38 in my 2024 US Election Preparation Challenge.
In this epic academic tome, Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec examine almost a century of political science analysis to present the growth of power amongst federal judicial nominees, particularly the US Supreme Court. They are clear that this is non-partisan and use extensive statistics to offer these opinions, which can be backed up throughout this well-documented tome. While it is not for the casual reader, Cameron and Kastellec offer stunning advancements to the study of Supreme Court nominees and sitting Justices, providing an eye-opening look at how things have shifted over time and what influences are strongest when a Justice is chosen or sits on the highest court in the United States. There is something in my political science background that could not get enough of this book, as it scratched an itch I have long had about the process, the details, and the outcomes of US Supreme Court nominations, which could be key during the upcoming administration. A great book for those who want to get their nerd on when it comes to the Court.
There is no doubt that when a president makes an appointment to the US Supreme Court, people take notice. Not that the citizens are keen to listen to each and every case coming from the high court, but they are keenly aware of all that happens in that hallowed room and the decisions that emanate from those decisions. Each vacancy offers a bitter struggle to push the Court in one way or the other, causing rifts between factions of people and ideologies. Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec explore this process in depth and provide keen observations throughout the journey to explain the role of judicial nominations and how they have come to pass over the last 90 years, dissecting things done and proving the reader with a strong set of statistical answers to the process. While a non-partisan piece, the three parts to this book are anything but beige to the curious reader.
The authors seek not only to explore the sentiment in the country during the time of a nomination, but also try to analyse the players in the process. Who were the nominees, by their ideological viewpoints and judicial rulings? What role di they play before arriving at the Court and what did they seek to do while there? There is a strong sentiment throughout the book that, as many nominees will say, these people sought only to serve their country and use the laws of the land to determine what was placed before them. However, as the authors make keenly aware to all, there is always an undertone of preconceived notion when it comes to the judicial nominee, as though they are influenced by forces outside and from within themselves.
There is also a great deal of discussion about the other players in the game, namely the president and the senators who will vet and vote on the nominee. The authors explore trends in ideology throughout the nomination process, public sentiment and make up of the US Senate to determine how easily things will pass during a nomination. This is a wonderful exploration, an obstacle course of sorts, to see how a president will get a nominee from start to finish. The authors toss many a statistical analysis here to show how conservatism might fare against a staunchly liberal Senate or public opinion on an issue, never shying away from the fact that nominations have become highly partisan and there is little chance of a simple stamp of approval.
One issue that cannot be dodged is that of social events at the time. What mattered to the public and how would a case coming before the Court be ruled upon, based on the judicial make up of the Court? Social issues like segregation, abortion, voting rights, and even government intervention all played key roles in shaping the country under the Court’s interpretation of the rules. While the authors do not delve too deeply in an interpretative analysis of the Court and its decisions, there is o doubt that t is present. Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned had the Court not been filled with Justices of a certain ilk, which cannot be denied, even when many say that the Justices are simply reading the law before them. However, this is the crux of the nomination and appointment process, to get Justices who will see things a certain way and, in time, rule in combination with other like-minded people to turn policies and initiatives a certain way.
What does this mean for 2024? There is no promise that there will be nominations that occur during the next administration, but the fact that there could means a great deal. No one could have predicted the death of Antonin Scalia, so a president needs to be ready to appoint at any time. Who they choose is key and how the Court is composed speaks volumes about how things might go. We have seen what happened with the three Trump nominees from 2016-20 and now must wait to see if there is a chance to add to the conservative base, or if there will be a shift with a Harris nomination. One might also see no appointments, as has happened in the first term of many presidents, looking at the age and relative spryness of many sitting Justices. However, we cannot sit idly by and wait, for the US Supreme Court is one of those things that are always evolving, depending on your political leanings. The authors spend much time in the latter chapters exploring projection analyses about what the Court might look like up to 2100, based on a number of interesting filters.
Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec did a formidable job with this piece, offering up a stunning review of policy and analysis of judicial nominees and appointments over the last nine decades. Their research is second to none and this book was one of those diamonds in the rough that I was so pleased to have found. While I had to dust off much of my political science academic reading brain, I loved how thoroughly they got about things and what views they discovered int the statistics they could crunch. The chapters were full of great information and offered the reader a stellar look at the system and all its moving parts. While not a book for the casual reader, boiling down its sentiments would make for some great quick understanding of the importance of selecting a president who suits the voter’s needs, as nominations to the US Supreme Court are anything but temporary. The permanence of an appointment leaves a lasting resonance (some might say pall) on the American political and judicial system. One bad choice and it all comes crashing down, potentially for decades.
Kudos, Messrs. Cameron and Kastellec, for the formidable book that ticked all the boxes.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
With the events of July 21, 2024, when Joe Biden chose not to seek re-election, the challenge has become harder to properly reflect the Democratic side. I will do the best I can to properly prepare and offer up books that can explore the Biden Administration, as well as whomever takes the helm into November.
This is Book #38 in my 2024 US Election Preparation Challenge.
In this epic academic tome, Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec examine almost a century of political science analysis to present the growth of power amongst federal judicial nominees, particularly the US Supreme Court. They are clear that this is non-partisan and use extensive statistics to offer these opinions, which can be backed up throughout this well-documented tome. While it is not for the casual reader, Cameron and Kastellec offer stunning advancements to the study of Supreme Court nominees and sitting Justices, providing an eye-opening look at how things have shifted over time and what influences are strongest when a Justice is chosen or sits on the highest court in the United States. There is something in my political science background that could not get enough of this book, as it scratched an itch I have long had about the process, the details, and the outcomes of US Supreme Court nominations, which could be key during the upcoming administration. A great book for those who want to get their nerd on when it comes to the Court.
There is no doubt that when a president makes an appointment to the US Supreme Court, people take notice. Not that the citizens are keen to listen to each and every case coming from the high court, but they are keenly aware of all that happens in that hallowed room and the decisions that emanate from those decisions. Each vacancy offers a bitter struggle to push the Court in one way or the other, causing rifts between factions of people and ideologies. Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec explore this process in depth and provide keen observations throughout the journey to explain the role of judicial nominations and how they have come to pass over the last 90 years, dissecting things done and proving the reader with a strong set of statistical answers to the process. While a non-partisan piece, the three parts to this book are anything but beige to the curious reader.
The authors seek not only to explore the sentiment in the country during the time of a nomination, but also try to analyse the players in the process. Who were the nominees, by their ideological viewpoints and judicial rulings? What role di they play before arriving at the Court and what did they seek to do while there? There is a strong sentiment throughout the book that, as many nominees will say, these people sought only to serve their country and use the laws of the land to determine what was placed before them. However, as the authors make keenly aware to all, there is always an undertone of preconceived notion when it comes to the judicial nominee, as though they are influenced by forces outside and from within themselves.
There is also a great deal of discussion about the other players in the game, namely the president and the senators who will vet and vote on the nominee. The authors explore trends in ideology throughout the nomination process, public sentiment and make up of the US Senate to determine how easily things will pass during a nomination. This is a wonderful exploration, an obstacle course of sorts, to see how a president will get a nominee from start to finish. The authors toss many a statistical analysis here to show how conservatism might fare against a staunchly liberal Senate or public opinion on an issue, never shying away from the fact that nominations have become highly partisan and there is little chance of a simple stamp of approval.
One issue that cannot be dodged is that of social events at the time. What mattered to the public and how would a case coming before the Court be ruled upon, based on the judicial make up of the Court? Social issues like segregation, abortion, voting rights, and even government intervention all played key roles in shaping the country under the Court’s interpretation of the rules. While the authors do not delve too deeply in an interpretative analysis of the Court and its decisions, there is o doubt that t is present. Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned had the Court not been filled with Justices of a certain ilk, which cannot be denied, even when many say that the Justices are simply reading the law before them. However, this is the crux of the nomination and appointment process, to get Justices who will see things a certain way and, in time, rule in combination with other like-minded people to turn policies and initiatives a certain way.
What does this mean for 2024? There is no promise that there will be nominations that occur during the next administration, but the fact that there could means a great deal. No one could have predicted the death of Antonin Scalia, so a president needs to be ready to appoint at any time. Who they choose is key and how the Court is composed speaks volumes about how things might go. We have seen what happened with the three Trump nominees from 2016-20 and now must wait to see if there is a chance to add to the conservative base, or if there will be a shift with a Harris nomination. One might also see no appointments, as has happened in the first term of many presidents, looking at the age and relative spryness of many sitting Justices. However, we cannot sit idly by and wait, for the US Supreme Court is one of those things that are always evolving, depending on your political leanings. The authors spend much time in the latter chapters exploring projection analyses about what the Court might look like up to 2100, based on a number of interesting filters.
Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec did a formidable job with this piece, offering up a stunning review of policy and analysis of judicial nominees and appointments over the last nine decades. Their research is second to none and this book was one of those diamonds in the rough that I was so pleased to have found. While I had to dust off much of my political science academic reading brain, I loved how thoroughly they got about things and what views they discovered int the statistics they could crunch. The chapters were full of great information and offered the reader a stellar look at the system and all its moving parts. While not a book for the casual reader, boiling down its sentiments would make for some great quick understanding of the importance of selecting a president who suits the voter’s needs, as nominations to the US Supreme Court are anything but temporary. The permanence of an appointment leaves a lasting resonance (some might say pall) on the American political and judicial system. One bad choice and it all comes crashing down, potentially for decades.
Kudos, Messrs. Cameron and Kastellec, for the formidable book that ticked all the boxes.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
Displaying 1 of 1 review