Description
Book SynopsisAppointments to the United States Supreme Court are now central events in American political life. Every vacancy unleashes a bitter struggle between Republicans and Democrats over nominees; and once the seat is filled, new justices typically vote in predictable ways. However, this has not always been the case. As late as the middle of the twentieth century, presidents invested little time and effort in finding and vetting nominees, often selecting personal cronies, who senators briskly confirmed. Media coverage was desultory, public opinion was largely non-existent, and the justices often voted independently and erratically. In Making the Supreme Court, Charles M. Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec examine 90 years of American political history to show how the growth of federal judicial power from the 1930s onward inspired a multitude of groups struggling to shape judicial policy. Over time, some groups moved beyond lobbying the Court to changing who sits on it. Other groups formed expr
Trade ReviewMaking the Supreme Court uses judicial nominees to investigate larger changes in American politics over the last century, enduring questions about the administrative state, political parties, citizens, interest groups, and lobbying-not to mention nettlesome debates about voter rationality, the downstream effects of partisan polarization, and plenty more besides. Keenly perceptive and abundantly inquisitive, Cameron and Kastellec have delivered a tour de force that is sure to have a major impact on our understanding of all of American politics. * William Howell, Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics, The University of Chicago *
Making the Supreme Court is a game changer. It describes and analyzes the entire appointments process with the goal of explaining why Supreme Court nominations transformed from low to high salience events, and how this transformation affects the contemporary court. Because, on the authors' account, the transformation touched every aspect of the process-from the president's approach to selecting nominees to the media's coverage of the proceedings-an expansive approach was required. And Cameron and Kastellec take on the task with gusto. For each change they posit, they dig in, ultimately developing a compelling mix of evidence connecting the transformation to the Court and its decisions-meaning that Making the Supreme Court's contributions transcend the selection of justices; the results help us make sense of the behavior of the contemporary court. * Lee Epstein, University Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California *
An exemplary analysis of a hugely important political phenomenon: the evolution of a strongly partisan, and likely, very stable court. How did this happen? The authors argue that the answer is found in appointment politics, writ large. Supreme Court appointments are examined and explained systemically, from the vantages of presidents, senators, justices, media, voters, the past, present, and the futures too. Powerful analytic tools and models are developed and deployed, alternative theories are carefully examined and eliminated, and the results are persuasive. Making the Supreme Court is a definitive account that seems likely to last as long as the current court majority. * John A. Ferejohn, Samuel Tilden Professor of Law, New York University School of Law *
Cameron and Kastellec's Making the Supreme Court is deeply researched and thought-out, and both theoretically and historically sophisticated. It will in short order become the key work on Supreme Court appointment politics. * Josh Chafetz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center *
Table of ContentsI. What Happened Then and Now The Party Demands: Party Agendas for the Supreme Court Selecting How to Select: Presidents and Organizational Design The Candidates for the Court and the Nominees Interest Groups The Media, co-authored with Leeann Bass and Julian Dean Public Opinion Decision in the Senate II. Why it Happened The Logic of Presidential Selection, co-authored with Lauren Mattioli What the Public Wanted Voting in the Shadow of Accountability: Senators' Confirmation Decisions III. How It Matters, and What the Future Holds New Politics, New Justices, New Policies: The Courts That Politics Made The Future: The Courts that Politics May Make What Future Do We Want? Evaluating Judicial Independence Conclusion
