Advice & consent : Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork and the intriguing history of the Supreme Court's nomination battles /

Senator Simon (D.-Ill.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gives an insider's account of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees. He examines recent controversial confirmation hearings, especially for Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, and earlier confirmation battles beginning with George Washington's administration. Simon offers new information and a distinctive perspective on the Thomas hearings and the Thomas-Hill confrontation. Arguing that the Senate should take its ``advice and consent'' responsibilities seriously, he recommends that the Senate should insure ideological diversity among Supreme Court nominees, inquire closely into the nominee's substantive views, and use executive sessions when nominees face serious charges. He also suggests that presidents should seriously seek the advice and consent of the Senate prior to nominating a justice. This thoughtful analysis is recommended for legal and political collections. See also Court of Appeal: The Black Community Speaks Out on the Racial and Sexual Politics of Thomas vs. Hill , reviewed on p. 129.--Ed.-- Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.