Judicious Choices: The New Politics of Supreme Court Confirmations
It is hardly news that the political and legal contexts for Supreme Court nominations, as the author puts it, have evolved from "the politics of acquiescence to the politics of confrontation." This modest book by a lawyer who teaches political science at Boston University is most useful for those seeking an overview of that evolution. Silverstein dates the watershed to President Lyndon Johnson's failed attempt to nominate his crony Abe Fortas to chief justice in 1968. He points out that the more aggressive judicial role assumed by the Warren Court raised the political stakes of confirmations and describes the increased activism and monitoring of nominations by interest and advocacy groups of both the left and the right. The Senate has also become less clubby and more sensitive to the electorate, we are told. Thus, as Silverstein comments regarding the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, the confirmation process now favors nominees whose acceptability exceeds their stature. However, unlike Stephen Carter's recent The Confirmation Mess, Silverstein offers no suggestions for reform.Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.