Electing Justice
Richard Davis
- 10 Mar 2005
19
TL;DR: The Supreme Court nomination process has become highly politicized and involves a large number of outside players, including interest groups, the news media, and the general public.
read more
Abstract: Abstract The nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices has, in recent years, become a battleground like no other. Bruising Senate confirmation hearings for failed nominee Robert Bork and successful nominee Clarence Thomas left the reputation of all branches of government in disarray and the participants--and the nation--exhausted. The Senate's Constitutional prerogative to provide advice and consent to the President's nominations to the highest court in the land has given rise to political grandstanding and ideological battles. Less well known is how other players--interest groups, the news media, and, through their involvement, the general public--also affect the conduct and outcome of the Supreme Court nomination process. Electing Justice reveals how from the late 1960s on, the role of these other players grew in intensity to the point that the nomination process would be unrecognizable to its original devisers, the Framers of the Constitution. Over the past quarter century, live television coverage of Senate hearings, "murder boards" in preparation for those hearings, a flood of press releases, television and radio advertisements, and public opinion polls all characterize nominations. Unlike earlier, more elite-governed processes, the involvement of outside groups has become highly public and their effect on the outcome of some nominations is now widely accepted. How should we respond to this informal democratization of the selection process? The genie, Davis contends, cannot be put back into the bottle and we cannot return to a non-political, elite-driven ideal. Davis concludes with several controversial recommendations that preserve the public role while avoiding the excesses of past controversial nominations. By embracing the public's new role in the examination of nominees we can ensure a democratic process and secure an independent and accountable judicial branch.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
New Mediated Deliberation: Blog and Press Coverage of the Alito Nomination
TL;DR: Analysis of blog and newspaper coverage of the nomination and confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court of Samuel Alito suggests that blogs may enhance as well as complicate processes of mediated deliberation.
77
How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court
Jon C. Rogowski,Andrew R. Stone +1 more
TL;DR: The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines, finding that political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans' views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy.
54
Perpetuating the Myth of the Culture War Court? Issue Attention in Newspaper Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Nominations
TL;DR: Using digital text analysis methods, the authors analyzed over 3800 newspaper articles covering U.S. Supreme Court judicial appointments between 1981 and 2009 to measure the level of (in)congruence between t...
50
The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy
TL;DR: In this paper, a new measure of judicial legitimacy, the applied legitimacy index, was proposed to measure the extent to which individuals are willing to sanction an ideologically distant Court, based on the American Panel Survey and item response theory models.
37
Partisanship, Ideology, and Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees
TL;DR: This paper investigated the effects of partisanship on confirmation votes and found that partisanship has played an increasing role over time and that the effect of ideology on confirmation voting was dependent on partisanship.
35