Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court

After his extremely rough Senate confirmation hearings, Justice Brett Kavanaugh characterized the process simply as a "circus." "You have replaced 'advice and consent' with 'search and destroy.' " And this from a successful nominee. This helpful book traces the history of Supreme Court nominations, highlights some of the deficiencies in the process, and offers some helpful suggested reforms. Reasonably the author suggests it is first necessary to look at the history of nominations and get informed, and then discuss some possible reforms.The first section of the book (92 pages) traces most of the major confirmations from the early Court down to the New Frontier. But the author also includes a good helping of Court history as part of his discussion. For readers not knowledgeable about the Court's history, this section affords an important concise introduction. The second section (about 245 pages) concentrates on the modern era of appointments. from the Burger Court through to Kavanaugh (it does not include Justice Barrett). In both these initial sections, the author has really done his research and is quite informative. And although affiliated with the conservative Cato Institute here in Washington, he only occasionally takes pot shots as some of the liberal justices.However, I found the most valuable section of the book to be the final one which discusses future diagnoses and possible reforms in the confirmation process. Since the process is now driven by issues of judicial philosophy rather than qualifications, politics are endemic to the process. Nonetheless, there are possible reforms. First up are term limits, which we hear about frequently in the media., but the author doubts if this would much improve the process. More radical reforms include expanded Court membership, breaking the Justices into three judge panels, and balancing the Court ideologically. Finally the author discusses the key issue of "legitimacy, especially as to Chief Justice Roberts' shifting positions. The author concludes that whatever you can say about legitimacy, it is largely overrated as a factor.I agree with the author's conclusion that there are no silver bullets to reform the process, and also that the Court has become so overactive in so many different areas, that this has boosted the partisan dimensions of each new nomination off the scale. Adjusting this aspect might go a long way toward making the path to reform easier. This is one of the most effective and thoughtful books I have read on this topic. The 37 pages of notes attest to the author's thorough research. An essential book on this topic.

Shapiro knows the Supreme Court as well as anyone outside of the Justices themselves. This book, through clear-eyed and witty analysis, cuts through the messy debates about Supreme Court nominations. Drawing on a fascinating history and an amazing breadth of Supreme Court knowledge, Shapiro offers an excellent diagnosis of today's confirmation battles. He also offers a cure: "Let Texas be Texas and California be California. That's the only way we're going to defuse tensions in Washington..." And if we don't, then the contentious process for Kavanaugh ("a partisan Rorschach test") will only become a harbinger.

A good, detailed reminder that craziness, dirt and irrelevancy are the mainstream of the history of Supreme Court nominations. And even so, the system seems to work much better than most.

This book and its audio companion do a great job of reviewing the legitimacy of the Supreme Court through the appointment of judges. The only unfortunate part of this book is that it only covers through 2018.

Erudite and entertaining, this book lays out how we got to the dumpster fire that is today's Supreme Court confirmation process. There is also some insight into what a reform might look like. This book should be in your library if you are interested in the Highest Court of the Land.

This book provided an interesting education regarding the Supreme Court. Although I have had opinions on the Court during my life, this book provided the history and substance to reform my opinions and provided the information that will allow me to talk in a more informed manner going forward.

This was on our book club list. I was especially interested in the book after the recent Supreme Court nominations. Interesting read.

Ilya Shapiro's even-handed (and remarkably timely) telling of the history of Supreme Court nominations is an excellent read, augmented by exceptionally sharp analysis of both the trends of the past and the possibilities for the future.

Narrative history should be written as just that: a narrative, a story. Mr. Shapira tends to give us lists of facts with no explanation or commentary.In any case, this book will probably give some comfort to those who think that the judicial nomination system bounces back and forth between the politically twisted and the random. After all, it's always been that way, and it sometimes turns out well.