TL;DR: In this paper, two leading legal scholars, Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal, offer a brief, illuminating Baedeker to this highly important procedure, discussing everything from constitutional background, to crucial differences in the nomination of judges and justices, to the role of the Judiciary Committee in vetting nominees.
Abstract: From Louis Brandeis to Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas, the nomination of federal judges has generated intense political conflict. With the coming retirement of one or more Supreme Court Justices-and threats to filibuster lower court judges-the selection process is likely to be, once again, the center of red-hot partisan debate. In Advice and Consent, two leading legal scholars, Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal, offer a brief, illuminating Baedeker to this highly important procedure, discussing everything from constitutional background, to crucial differences in the nomination of judges and justices, to the role of the Judiciary Committee in vetting nominees. Epstein and Segal shed light on the role played by the media, by the American Bar Association, and by special interest groups (whose efforts helped defeat Judge Bork). Though it is often assumed that political clashes over nominees are a new phenomenon, the authors argue that the appointment of justices and judges has always been a highly contentious process-one largely driven by ideological and partisan concerns. The reader discovers how presidents and the senate have tried to remake the bench, ranging from FDR's controversial "court packing" scheme to the Senate's creation in 1978 of 35 new appellate and 117 district court judgeships, allowing the Democrats to shape the judiciary for years. The authors conclude with possible "reforms," from the so-called nuclear option, whereby a majority of the Senate could vote to prohibit filibusters, to the even more dramatic suggestion that Congress eliminate a judge's life tenure either by term limits or compulsory retirement. With key appointments looming on the horizon, Advice and Consent provides everything concerned citizens need to know to understand the partisan rows that surround the judicial nominating process.
TL;DR: The Bush Doctrine was constructed over a period of approximately eight months in response to the events of 9/11 and laid the foundation for a ―newly‖ proactive strategy of count.
Abstract: The Bush Doctrine was constructed over a period of approximately eight months in response to the events of 9/11. Beginning with the 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush laid the foundation for a ―newly‖ proactive strategy of count
TL;DR: In this paper, the selection and confirmation processes of lower federal court judges during the first six years of the Obama administration were examined. But the focus of the study was on the background and attributes of those confirmed during the 113th Congress.
Abstract: This is part 1 of a two-part series detailing the selection and confirmation processes of lower federal court judges during President Obama’s first 6 years. Our attention in part 1 is on Obama’s lower federal court appointments during the 113th Congress, specifically on the selection processes. We then examine the backgrounds and attributes of those confirmed during the 113th, looking at the appointees to the district and appeals courts separately. Confirmation processes are the main focus of part 2 of our study, where we discuss the lead-up to the nuclear option, the “fallout” from its invocation, and the renewed emphasis on the Blue Slip system as a tool of the minority party in the Senate. We conclude by taking a deeper look at the administration’s historic contribution to enhancing diversity on the federal bench across the district and circuit courts and, as well, make a similar assessment of the impact of the Obama appointments on the partisan makeup of the federal bench on the district court...
TL;DR: The Filibuster: The Nuclear Option and the Dangers of Overzealous Reform are examined.
Abstract: Foreword Preface Chapter One Soul of the Senate Chapter Two Filibuster, Cloture, and Unfettered Amendment Chapter Three History of the Filibuster Chapter Four Polarized Politics and the Use and Abuse of the Filibuster Chapter Five Criticisms of the Filibuster Chapter Six The Dangers of Overzealous Reform Chapter Seven Related Tactics: Holds Chapter Eight Related Tactics: Filling the Amendment Tree Chapter Nine Circumventing the Filibuster: Reconciliation Chapter Ten Reforming the Filibuster: The Constitutional Option Chapter Eleven Reforming the Filibuster: The Nuclear Option Chapter Twelve Bring In the Cots Chapter Thirteen Defending the Filibuster Epilogue Appendix Bibliography
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors employ simple formal models drawn from political science to explain the occurrence of gridlock in the federal judicial selection process, and explore the implications of the nuclear option, by which a bare majority of senators employ parliamentary tactics to abolish the filibuster with respect to judicial nominations.
Abstract: In this paper, we employ simple formal models drawn from political science to explain the occurrence of gridlock in the federal judicial selection process, and to explore the implications of the nuclear option, by which a bare majority of senators employs parliamentary tactics to abolish the filibuster with respect to judicial nominations. Our application of a pivotal politics model leads us to reject the notion that appointments gridlock is a straightforward consequence of divided government. Instead, meaningful changes to the ideological balance of the federal bench require a more demanding ideological alignment of multiple veto players relative to the status quo. This conclusion is confirmed by the recent history of the federal judicial appointments process. We then adapt the pivotal politics model to the existence of the nuclear option by introducing a new player, the nuclear pivot, who supplies the last vote needed to trigger the nuclear option, and whose precise identity is uncertain - perhaps even to the nuclear pivot herself. Introduction of the nuclear pivot curtails the extent of gridlock and makes possible some change in the status quo, albeit less change than would be possible in the outright absence of the filibuster. We conclude not only that the threat of the nuclear option works to the detriment of the minority Democrats, but also that the Democrats have gained nothing of substance from the agreement reached by a group of moderate senators - the so-called Gang of 14 - that has indefinitely forestalled actual exercise of the nuclear option. However, both uncertainty over the location of the nuclear pivot and the degree to which the Democrats have successfully prolonged the confrontation over judicial nominees may hinder the President from capitalizing upon the advantage otherwise conferred by the threat of the nuclear option.