The Next Justice
Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process
-
- $17.99
-
- $17.99
Publisher Description
The Supreme Court appointments process is broken, and the timing couldn't be worse--for liberals or conservatives. The Court is just one more solid conservative justice away from an ideological sea change--a hard-right turn on an array of issues that affect every American, from abortion to environmental protection. But neither those who look at this prospect with pleasure nor those who view it with horror will be able to make informed judgments about the next nominee to the Court--unless the appointments process is fixed now. In The Next Justice, Christopher Eisgruber boldly proposes a way to do just that. He describes a new and better manner of deliberating about who should serve on the Court--an approach that puts the burden on nominees to show that their judicial philosophies and politics are acceptable to senators and citizens alike. And he makes a new case for the virtue of judicial moderates.
Long on partisan rancor and short on serious discussion, today's appointments process reveals little about what kind of judge a nominee might make. Eisgruber argues that the solution is to investigate how nominees would answer a basic question about the Court's role: When and why is it beneficial for judges to trump the decisions of elected officials? Through an examination of the politics and history of the Court, Eisgruber demonstrates that pursuing this question would reveal far more about nominees than do other tactics, such as investigating their views of specific precedents or the framers' intentions.
Written with great clarity and energy, The Next Justice provides a welcome exit from the uninformative political theater of the current appointments process.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
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.
