The Supreme Court Appointments Process and the Real Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives

Abstract

What distinguishes judicial liberals from judicial conservatives? The answer, argues Christopher Eisgruber in The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process, is the same as what distinguishes liberals from conservatives generally: their "political and moral values."' According to Eisgruber, a self-described liberal,2 the line dividing liberals and conservatives is especially evident on the Supreme Court. Because the Court's docket ''consists almost exclusively of hard cases where the law's meaning is genuinely in doubt," applying the law "will require the justices to make politically controversial judgments" "in a significant number of instances. ' "When they make those judgments," writes Eisgruber, "they have no choice but to bring their values to bear on the issues in front of them."4 Eisgruber thus argues that Senators should thoroughly examine a Supreme Court nominee's ideological convictions before voting to confirm the next Justice.'