» » Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees

Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees ePub download

by Michael Comiskey

  • Author: Michael Comiskey
  • ISBN: 0700613471
  • ISBN13: 978-0700613472
  • ePub: 1709 kb | FB2: 1264 kb
  • Language: English
  • Category: Social Sciences
  • Publisher: University Press of Kansas (October 12, 2004)
  • Pages: 296
  • Rating: 4.8/5
  • Votes: 142
  • Format: txt azw doc rtf
Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees ePub download

Michael Comiskey's Seeking Justices has exquisite timing. It has been nearly ten years since a justice has been confirmed to the Supreme Court and now the drought is over

Michael Comiskey's Seeking Justices has exquisite timing. It has been nearly ten years since a justice has been confirmed to the Supreme Court and now the drought is over. With the passing of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice Sandra O'Connor in the summer of 2005, George W. Bush now has the opportunity to remold the court to his conservative liking. His first nominee, John Roberts, sailed through the confirmation process with relative ease

Another of the book's unique features is Comiskey's reassessment of the reputations of twentieth-century Supreme Court justices.

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 th.

Mr Michael Comiskey Associate Professor Pennsylvania State University, Fayette- Political Science.

Comiskey talked about his book, published by University Press of Kansas. Comiskey talked about his book Seeking Justices: The Judging Of Supreme Court Nominees, published by University Press of Kansas. He described the selection of Supreme Court justices and differences in the selection process depending upon which political party was in office. Michael Comiskey Associate Professor Pennsylvania State University, Fayette- Political Science. C. Gib Prettyman Director Pennsylvania State University, Fayette- Academic Affairs.

Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2004

Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2004. The Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. In particular, scholars and the public alike view it as broken because it has become too political, too ideological, and therefore overly contentious. Comiskey's book argues that the process actually works very well, not despite but because of its political, ideological, and contentious nature. It is a cogently argued book and merits attention from scholars who want to better understand the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes.

Richard Davis Electing Justice: Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process. He currently is exploring George W. Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005.

Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004. Richard Davis Electing Justice: Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal. Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments. Benjamin Wittes Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times.

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.

In Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees, Michael Comiskey examines the process through which nominees for Supreme Court appointments are confirmed

In Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees, Michael Comiskey examines the process through which nominees for Supreme Court appointments are confirmed. As he shows, there is sharp disagreement about whether it is appropriate for a nominee's political views to be part of the confirmation process. The legalist school argues that this is inappropriate and that confirmation hearings should instead focus solely on the nominee's legal credentials.

On July 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had announced his retirement

On July 1, 1991, President George H. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had announced his retirement. The nomination proceedings were contentious from the start, especially over the issue of abortion, and many women's groups and civil rights groups opposed Thomas on the basis of his conservative political views, as they had also opposed Bush's Supreme Court nominee from the previous year, David Souter.

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier. At the time of his nomination, Garland was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2004. Disqualifying the High Court: Supreme Court Recusal and the Constitution by Louis . irelliIII. December 2017 ยท Political Science Quarterly.

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.
Eigonn
This is one of a slew of recent books focusing upon the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices. The author, an associate professor of political science, argues that the current process, while not perfect, is neither as ineffectual as some critics allege or as destructive of judicial independence as other observers contend. To assess the current process, the author discusses the history of the selection process; the intended constitutional role of the Senate in the process (i.e., is ideology fair game?); and the record regarding confirmation hearings. The author disputes that the process is overpoliticized, which he attributes to the inaccurate images of the Bork and Thomas hearings. Rather, the key determinant is the professional qualifications of the nominee, his ethical views, and whether his constitutional philosophy is in the mainstream. The book contains the results of a survey the author conducted of experts that concluded there has not been an erosion in the quality of recent Justices. A most interesting chapter on the Thomas nomination is included, which was a mess largely due to an indecisive Judiciary Committee handling of the Anita Hill issue. The author also discusses whether nominees are scrutinized too much, or not enough. A solid discussion of the Rehnquist court is employed to argue that a ideologically conservative court does not necessarily go off in bizarre directions, but remains largely in the mainstream. In short, for the most part, the current selection process the author contends is in fairly robust good health. The analysis is supported by 58 pages of helpful notes and an extremely valuable bibliography of sources on this issue. While perhaps a bit overly sanguine about the current process, nonetheless a thoughtful discussion of this vital issue.
Skiletus
Woefully out of date and in need of a major revision.
E-Books Related to Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees: