Basic Books, 252 pp., $21.00
Pantheon, 475 pp., $15.00 (paper)
Viking, 225 pp., $19.95
Houghton Mifflin, 406 pp., $24.95
After Supreme Court nominations led to two recent slug-fests (Robert Bork's rejection in 1987, Clarence Thomas's confirmation in 1991), many people believed that 'the process' of clearing appointments to the Court had gone seriously awry and needed repair. Senator John Danforth wants confirmation hearings to be treated like trials, preserving the assumption that a nominee is innocent of all charges brought against him or her, until and unless such charges can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Others have proposed different remedies—that trained cross-examiners, instead of senators on the judiciary committee, question the nominee; that the hearings be held in secret (or not held at all), that witnesses against the nominee be restricted in what they can allege. Stephen Carter, in The Confirmation Mess, shows how unpracticable these and other remedies would be.
Review, 9224 words
To read the full text of this piece, please choose one of the following options:
|
If you are already a subscriber to the Review's electronic edition, please sign in: |
To subscribe to the electronic edition, please press the button below. |
To purchase access to this article for $3, please press the button below. |