000			03735cam a2200349 a 4500
001			2004013285
003			DLC
005			20190729102919.0
008			040604s2004 ksu b s001 0 eng
010			_a 2004013285
020			_a0700613463 (cloth : alk. paper)
020			_a0700613471 (pbk. : alk. paper)
040			_aDLC _cDLC _dDLC
043			_an-us---
049			_aEY8Z
050	0	0	_aKF8742 _b.C63 2004
082	0	0	_a347.73/2634 _222
100	1		_aComiskey, Michael.
245	1	0	_aSeeking justices : _bthe judging of Supreme Court nominees / _cMichael Comiskey.
260			_aLawrence, Kan. : _bUniversity Press of Kansas, _cc2004.
300			_avii, 287 p. ; _c24 cm.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 263-277) and index.
505	0		_aIntroduction : contrasting perspectives on the confirmation process -- The Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process -- The politicization of the confirmation process -- The confirmation process and the quality of justices -- The confirmation of Clarence Thomas -- Unrevealing inquiries : are nominees all that stealthy? -- Court packing and an aberrant court -- Conclusion : reforming a machine that would run of itself.
520			_aPublisher description: In the long shadows cast by the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations, Supreme Court confirmations remain highly contentious and controversial. This is due in part to the Senate's increasing reliance upon a much lengthier, much more public, and occasionally raucous confirmation process-in an effort to curb the potential excesses of executive power created by presidents seeking greater control over the Court's ideological composition. Michael Comiskey offers the most comprehensive, systematic, and optimistic analysis of that process to date. Arguing that the process works well and therefore should not be significantly altered, Comiskey convincingly counters those critics who view highly contentious confirmation proceedings as the norm. Senators have every right and a real obligation, he contends, to scrutinize the nominees' constitutional philosophies. He further argues that the media coverage of the Senate's deliberations has worked to improve the level of such scrutiny and that recent presidents have neither exerted excessive influence on the appointment process nor created a politically extreme Court. He also examines the ongoing concern over presidential efforts to pack the court, concluding that stacking the ideological deck is unlikely. As an exception to the rule, Comiskey analyzes in depth the Thomas confirmation to explain why it was an aberration, offering the most detailed account yet of Thomas's pre-judicial professional and political activities. He argues that the Senate Judiciary Committee abdicated its responsibilities out of deference to Thomas's race. Another of the book's unique features is Comiskey's reassessment of the reputations of twentieth-century Supreme Court justices. Based on a survey of nearly 300 scholars in constitutional law and politics, it shows that the modern confirmation process continues to fill Court vacancies with jurists as capable as those of earlier eras. We have now seen the longest period without a turnover on the Court since the early nineteenth century, making inevitable the appointment of several new justices following the 2004 presidential election. Thus, the timing of the publication of Seeking Justices could not be more propitious.
610	1	0	_aUnited States. _bSupreme Court.
650		0	_aJudges _xSelection and appointment _zUnited States.
650		0	_aLaw and politics.
948			_au172856
949			_hEY8Z _i33039000748698
596			_a1
903			_a9202
999			_c9202 _d9202