Supremely Political

Drawing upon revealing and generally unpublished presidential papers associated with Lyndon Johnson's ill-fated nomination of Abe Fortas, and Richard Nixon's failed designations of Clement F. Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell, and culminating in a lively investigation of the Bork and Ginsburg cases, the author convincingly demonstrates that the Senate's negative actions can be traced to the exciting interplay of three factors. The author demonstrates that these decisions are based not only upon the nominee's ideology and the timing of the nomination, but also on the president's management of the confirmation process. He vividly illustrates that most failed nominations can be attributed to unwise choices, disastrous miscalculations, and outright blunders made by the presidents during the confirmation process. While other scholars have explained unsuccessful nominations by employing the factors of ideology and timing, the author breaks new and fertile ground in highlighting the role of presidential management in his explanation.

On the eve of a presidential election that may determine the makeup of Supreme Court justices for decades to come, prominent attorney James D. Zirin argues that the Court has become increasingly partisan, rapidly making policy choices right and left on bases that have nothing to do with law or the Constitution. Zirin explains how we arrived at the present situation and looks at the current divide through its leading partisans, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor on the left and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the right. He also examines four of the Court’s most controversial recent decisions – Hobby Lobby, Obamacare, gay marriage, and capital punishment – arguing that these politicized decisions threaten to undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court.

This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.

In the long shadows cast by the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations, Supreme Court confirmations remain highly contentious and controversial. This is due in part to the Senate's increasing reliance upon a much lengthier, much more public, and occasionally raucous confirmation process—in an effort to curb the potential excesses of executive power created by presidents seeking greater control over the Court's ideological composition. Michael Comiskey offers the most comprehensive, systematic, and optimistic analysis of that process to date. Arguing that the process works well and therefore should not be significantly altered, Comiskey convincingly counters those critics who view highly contentious confirmation proceedings as the norm. Senators have every right and a real obligation, he contends, to scrutinize the nominees' constitutional philosophies. He further argues that the media coverage of the Senate's deliberations has worked to improve the level of such scrutiny and that recent presidents have neither exerted excessive influence on the appointment process nor created a politically extreme Court. He also examines the ongoing concern over presidential efforts to pack the court, concluding that stacking the ideological deck is unlikely. As an exception to the rule, Comiskey analyzes in depth the Thomas confirmation to explain why it was an aberration, offering the most detailed account yet of Thomas's pre-judicial professional and political activities. He argues that the Senate Judiciary Committee abdicated its responsibilities out of deference to Thomas's race. Another of the book's unique features is Comiskey's reassessment of the reputations of twentieth-century Supreme Court justices. Based on a survey of nearly 300 scholars in constitutional law and politics, it shows that the modern confirmation process continues to fill Court vacancies with jurists as capable as those of earlier eras. We have now seen the longest period without a turnover on the Court since the early nineteenth century, making inevitable the appointment of several new justices following the 2004 presidential election. Thus, the timing of the publication of Seeking Justices could not be more propitious.

While common-sense attitudes towards the United States Supreme Court have been focused on what decisions they are likely to make, this book aims to focus on the impacts of other politicized elements of the Court. Through statistical modeling and other quantitative analyses, Justin DePlato examines the ability of the presidency and the Senate to influence and shape policy through the Court’s nomination process, docket selection, and judicial retirements. The Court operating as a political institution threatens to affect, where it hasn’t already outright intervened, civil liberties and social issues in the modern era and represents a controversial mechanic in the workings of American statecraft.

A lively anecdotal account features every facet of Nixon's controversial administration, just in time for the 25th anniversary of his history-making resignation from the presidency. 23 photos.

Books recommended for undergraduate and college libraries listed by Library of Congress Classification Numbers.