Description
Book SynopsisExamines the degradation of the judicial nominations process. This title explains how the process has changed and how these changes threaten the independence of the courts. It argues that the process has changed as an institutional response by Congress to modern judicial power.
Trade ReviewDrawing upon his deep knowledge of Washington politics, Wittes proposes several structural solutions to confirmation partisanship, including abandoning nominee testimony and focusing Senators' attention on the nominee's record. Though some may find these suggestions radical, Wittes's practical, readable text represents a serious effort to cure a process that troubles many Americans. * Harvard Law Review, April 2007 *
This beautifully written and thought-provoking book is everything that the current confirmation process is not: temperate, thoughtful, nuanced, and fair. It is a 'must read' for anyone interested in the confirmation of federal judges. -- John Maltese, University of Georgia
This is the most interesting and fair-minded book ever written about the politics of judicial confirmation. The partisan participants in the judicial confirmation process should take Wittes's proposals for fixing the system very seriously, but for reasons he discouragingly explains, they probably won't. -- Jack Goldsmith, Harvard University
Benjamin Wittes, one of America's most insightful legal commentators, has achieved something remarkable: a book that casts genuinely fresh light on the question of judicial appointments. At a time when the debate about nominating and confirming judges tends to be shrill and partisan, this book is the opposite: scholarly, provocative, full of surprising history, and ultimately convincing. Both Wittes's analysis of the confirmation process and his proposed solutions will confound ideologues and delight open-minded readers of all political persuasions. -- Jeffrey Rosen, author of
The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America
[Wittes is] a highly cogent legal commentator. * The Review of Higher Education *
Wittes is not pounding madly on the table—he is too thoughtful and careful with evidence for that—but he is alarmed that in these 'angry times,' the judicial confirmation process, disfigured by harsh partisanship, poses a short and longer term threat to judicial independence. ... [Confirmation Wars] is a fine treatment of judicial confirmation politics, at all points judicious in its treatment of the issues and informative in its coverage of the relevant history and scholarly debate. -- Bob Bauer, author of More Soft Money Hard Law
Wittes, a Washington Post editorial writer, thoughtfully and dispassionately looks at how the federal judicial confirmation process has deteriorated over time (and he persuasively argues that it has indeed deteriorated), and what can be done about it. -- Eugene Volokh, UCLA
...A terrific history of Supreme Court nominations. -- John R. Lott Jr. * New York Post *
Witte's arguments and analyses are refreshing, especially his institutional perspective that sees the current confirmation process as the concomitant reaction to the overall institutional growth of the Judiciary over the last fifty years....Wittes's contribution to the study of the judicial selection process is an important one. * APSA Legislative Studies Section Newsletter, Book Notes, January 2008 *
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 1. Introduction Chapter 2 2. An Unsatisfying Debate Chapter 3 3. The Transformation of Judicial Confirmations Chapter 4 4. The Threat to Independent Courts Chapter 5 5. Conclusion: A Confirmation Process for Angry Times
