The nomination of federal judges has always generated intense political conflict, perhaps never more so than during the second presidential term of George W. Bush. In Advice and Consent, two leading legal scholars, Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal, offer a brief, illuminating Baedeker to this highly important procedure. The authors discuss everything from constitutional background to the crucial differences in the nomination of judges and justices and the role of the Judiciary Committee in vetting nominees. They also shed light on the different roles played by the media, the American Bar Association, and special interest groups in getting judges nominated--or rejected. The authors demonstrate how the appointment of justices and judges has historically been a highly contentious process--one largely driven by ideological and partisan concerns. The book describes how presidents and the senate have tried to remake the bench in the past, ranging from FDR's controversial "court packing" scheme to the Senate's establishment in 1978 of 35 new appellate and 117 district court judgeships, which allowed the Democrats to shape the judiciary for years. The authors conclude with a discussion of the possible "reforms," from the so-called "nuclear option" to the even more dramatic suggestion that Congress eliminate judges' life tenure by introducing term limits or compulsory retirement. Advice and Consent is an invaluable guide through the occasionally murky history of American court appointments, and will prepare you for the many contentious debates that are surely destined to come.