The process of appointing Associate Justices to the United States Supreme Court in the latter part of the twentieth century has become a highly contentious, politically charged, and extremely expensive ordeal. From the founding of the Supreme Court through the early portion of the twentieth-century, appointments were administered primarily as political patronage. However, by the 1980s, the process of appointing judges to our highest Court has become so contentious that the rate of judges rejected by Congress has continued to accelerate.
The first section of this paper will contain a historical overview of the development of the Supreme Court as well as the transformation of the appointment process. Section two will look at two models proposed by political scientists to explain the nature of this transformation. Section three will summarize the first two sections and explain which model seems most accurate in explaining the contemporary judicial appointment process. Finally, using this model as well as additional evidence, a forecast of future events will be rendered. Based on present conditions and the models, it is unfortunate that this forecast will be bleak.
In the ante-bellum period of American history, Supreme Court appointments were primarily motivated by political patronage. Often Presidents saw the High Court as an excellent means of repaying a loyal election contributors. In fact, Supreme Court appointments were generally considered only as desirable as federal post office positions. However, as the nation increasingly grew divided along regional lines over such issues as slavery, the Supreme Court became the arena of partisan and institutional conflict between the executive and legislative branches. In the legislature, the emergence of powerful parties and the maturity of the two party system, ensured that Supreme Court appointments would be judged along partisan and ideological lines.
Robert G. McC...