Selecting Supreme Court Justices
During the past year there has been much speculation about the imminent retirement of one or more Supreme Court justices, the possible nominees to replace him or her, and the "nuclear option." With so much discussion, it would be easy to assume that modern Supreme Court confirmation battles are far more contentious than ever before. In fact, however, these fights are not new. For example, rivalries after the Civil War fueled a highly politicized Supreme Court appointment process—Congress altered the size of the Court and there were four failed nominations between 1866 and 1874.
The public, however, is much more sophisticated today about how and why courts matter. The media has played an important role, informing the public of the importance of individual members of the Court and "swing justices," and raising interest in the appointment process. Additionally, as the Court's role in public policy has grown, the Senate and the president have viewed nominations as having greater policy implications. Of course, context also matters. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement ends 11 years without a vacancy arising on the Court.
The Division for Public Education asked a panel of experts to respond to questions about the judicial nomination process that touched on the balance between the president and the Senate, the role of interest groups, and the possibility of reforms in the confirmation process. Their answers were posted to an online discussion board, where they could read each other's remarks and respond if they chose. The following excerpts are taken from those discussions and will appear in Preview Issue 8 early this August. The full discussion is available in the Division for Public Education newsletter Focus on Law Studies.
Contributors
Joyce Baugh is Professor of Political Science at Central Michigan University.
Mary Dudziak is the Judge Edward J. and Ruey L. Guirado Professor of Law and History at the University of Southern California Law School.
Michael Gerhardt is Hanson Professor of Law at the William & Mary School of Law.
Timothy Johnson is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.
John Maltese is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia.
Mark Moller is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Jason Roberts is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.
Elliot Slotnick is Professor of Political Science and associate dean of the graduate school at the Ohio State University.
David Yalof is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut.
