Judicious Choices: The New Politics of the Supreme Court Confirmations

by Mark Silverstein

Since the defeat of Abe Fortas in 1968, the process of selection and confirmation of nominees to the Supreme Court has shifted from tightly controlled, leadership-dominated deference to presidential choice to democratic process, shaped by public participation and media coverage. It has become, in short, a process that reflects the best and worst of modern American politics. Arguing that the modern judicial confirmation process is the result of changes in the larger political setting, this text provides the reader with a different perspective on American politics during the last quarter-century. Focusing on alterations in the structure of national electoral politics as well as the expansion of judicial power and changes within the US Senate, it details the evolving political context surrounding the process of selecting and confirming the most important US judges and is intended to help the reader understand why nominees to the Court are currently subject to the crucible of modern participatory democracy.

Genres: Nonfiction

192 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1994

Reviews

[Kw Estes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shows through the lens of the Supreme Court confirmation process how civility and the 'middle ground' have left the lexicon of our government. It is no longer nearly as important that the best judge is picked to the Supreme Court as it is that the chosen judge does not have strong views or skeletons in the closet. This has led to the ever-swelling myth of 'judicial restraint' and technical jurisprudence. Political responsiveness has left the building and put a chair under the doorknob on the way out. Silverstein does well to make this a flowing piece of academia. Hat's off to him.

[Jwmccabe1 · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is low on substance and high on opinion. The author unfortunately gives a bad name to Columbia Law school - or at least any of his constitutional law professors - due his complete ignorance of relevant precedent and its relationships to current federal doctrines.

[Larissa Mendes · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's very historical regarding past Supreme Court Justice appointments. Also, it gives some background information regarding the Democratic and Republican party during Warren Court to Renquist.