Supreme Court power play: Assessing the Appropriate role of the senate in the confirmation process

Washington and Lee Law Review, Summer 2001 by Yates, Jeff, Gillespie, William

53. Ross, supra note 6, at 643.

54. Id. See generally Cad A. Pierce, A Vacancy on the Supreme Court: The Politics of Judicial Appointment 1893-94,39 TENN. L. REv. 555 (1972) (detailing battle over Supreme Court nominations).

55. Grover Rees Bt, Questions for Supreme Court Nominees at Confirmation Hearings: Excluding the Constitution, 17 GA. L. REV. 913,944 (1983).

56. For instance, during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) vehemently argued that senatorial ideological investigations and inquiries of Supreme Court nominees were without historical foundation. See Myers, supra note 37, at 4.

57. See Richard D. Friedman, The Transformation in Senate Response to Supreme Court Nomination: From Reconruction to the Taft Administration andBeyond, 5 CARDOZO L. REV. 1, 87 (1983) (considering argument that Senate must consider ideology while evaluating nominees because President does so while selecting theme, Fein, supra note 5, at 684 (discussing appropriate senatorial response to "consti nally transformative" nominees).

58. Lively, supra note 38, at 563.

Jeff Yates*

William Gillespie**

* Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Georgia. J.D., University of Tennessee; PhD., Florida State University.

** PhD. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of Georgia.