The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process

With President Bush's recent Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court shifting the Court perceptibly to the right and the retirements of several liberal justices looming, the appointment process for the next justice promises to be a partisan and bruising affair. And, according to Christopher L. Eisgruber-former Supreme Court clerk and Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs at Princeton University-without a radical change in Senate Confirmation Hearings, the process will continually fail to provide solid reasons to confirm or reject a the nominee. Eisgruber argues that Justices have their own judicial philosophy and that Senators have the right to reject a nominee if they find the nominee's philosophy objectionable. That said, he also argues contends that the current exchange between nominees and Senators regarding often centering on how nominees might rule on specific controversial issues , is ill conceived anddamages the Court damaging to the Court. Eisgruber offersOffering a different approach to the self-indulgent and demonstrably futile examinations that Senators currently direct at nominees, an Eisengruber underscores this new methodapproach highlighted by with well-designedin-depth questions constructed to reach address nominees' fundamental approach to Constitutional law. Unfortunately, other than the growing consensus that the confirmation system is broken, Eisgruber offers no reason why the decision-makers he hopes to influence will abandon their deeply ingrained partisanship. Hopeful readersNevertheless, readers will side with Eisgruber , however, and applaud his concise and lucid case for a more thoughtful and workable process.