Christopher Eisgruber’s The Next Justice

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. I look forward to reading this but, having sustained interest in the topic, am going in with low expectations. I don’t think the process is “broken” at all, certainly not any more than it was when the first nomination failed (in the Washington administration). Senators have been asking nominees about their “philosophies” for decades. How is that in any sense a “new” approach? What is more, political scientists have long recognized those “philosophies” are just about useless when it comes to predicting decisions.

    The philosophies and politics of nominees should be acceptable to citizens? What? What view do citizens take of the scope of the commerce power these days? You mean the citizens who have said they favor prayer in public schools in every poll taken since 1963? I guess affirmative action and the exclusionary rule would soon be out of the window. Sounds like an idea that is both unworkable and undesireable.

    And, of course, running to ideology (“moderates”) isn’t going to cure much. It is more likely to be viewed for what it probably is: a last ditch defense against a possible change in tide. Similarly, the people who worry/complain about “litmus tests” are usually the people who do not have power.

  2. Or:

    “The Court is just one more solid liberal justice away from an ideological sea change–a hard-left turn on an array of issues that affect every American, from the right to attend your local public school to free speech rights during campaign season.”

    But I’m sure Mr. Eisgruber’s political leanings aren’t at all apparent…