Review by Choice Review
Davis (Brigham Young) looks at recent developments in the process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices, and finds a new "culture of public scrutiny." He tells us that nominations to the court are no longer elite affairs, and he demonstrates the increase in public interest in nominations in the last half-century. Calling the process democratic is somewhat strange given that appointees are almost exclusively Harvard and Yale law graduates. Davis describes greater interest in the process and the contentious hearings that have become the norm. Today, the public gets a say in which Ivy League nominees get on the Court when there are hearings. Many contemporary scholars in the political science field known as "judicial process" accept this new process as democratic. Earlier scholars paid more attention to the demographic characteristics of the nominees, which have become more representative of the general population in some important respects. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty. --John Brigham, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Recent events have overtaken political science professor Davis's follow-up to his 2005 Electing Justice: Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process, which also discussed concerns that the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees has become too politicized. While Davis's prescriptions here are not as revolutionary as those in his prior book-where he suggested that Supreme Court justices should be elected directly by the voters-the current Senate's deep partisan divisions make his less-radical proposed reforms, such as fixed 18-year terms for justices, nonetheless unlikely. The impracticality of his suggestions makes this a volume of limited utility; while academics may be interested in Davis's fine-grained analyses-such as of the percentage of nominees confirmed at various stages in American history-readers who have followed the Gorsuch confirmation battle will find no larger revelations. By the end of the book, we are still left with a situation in which, as Davis observes, much of the public views the confirmation process as "tainted," which ultimately impacts public respect for "the Court itself." (June) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Davis (political science, Brigham Young Univ.; Electing Justice) offers a significant contribution to the burgeoning scholarship on the history and evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court appointment process. Beginning with the traditional appointment process, Davis unpacks its inherent elitism. Then he assesses the ways in which the Constitution evolved to generate changes, including the shifting roles of the president and Senate in response to sociopolitical changes. He also explores the heightened roles of special interest groups and the increasing prominence of the media. Next, Davis describes the "effects of democratization" in the process of presidential judicial selection and Senate confirmation. Not surprisingly, he notes the increasingly partisan nature of judicial selection and confirmation. Finally, he offers much-needed suggestions for reform, taking into account the recent political ploys blocking Merrick Garland's ascent to the high court. Davis's suggestions include, inter alia, the potential introduction of term limits for Supreme Court Justices, mandatory retirement age, and/or appointments of judges by other judges, possibly through ABA input. VERDICT Highly recommended for readers of other timely texts such as Laura Kalman's Long Reach of the Sixties.-Lynne Maxwell, West Virginia Univ. Coll. of Law Lib., Morgantown © Copyright 2017. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Choice Review
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Review by Library Journal Review
