"A highly informative study of presidential appointments and senatorial confirmation -- or rejection -- of those nominees to the Supreme Court throughout our history... This book is clearly written, fast paced, and very well documented. It is recommended to all interested to the political gateway to the federal appellate judiciary." -- Appellate Practice Journal and Update

"Stands out in its scholarly thoroughness and innovative theory... one of the best books currently available for understanding the contemporary politics of Supreme Court nominations." -- Law and Politics Book Review

Politics has always been at the heart of the Supreme Court selection process. According to John Anthony Maltese, the first "Borking" of a nominee came in 1795 with the defeat of John Rutledge's nomination as chief justice. What is different about today's appointment process, he argues, is not its politicization but the range of players involved and the political techniques that they use. In The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees, Maltese traces the evolution of the contentious and controversial confirmation process awaiting today's nominees to the nation's highest court. In this paperback edition, he includes a discussion of the recent nomination of Stephen Breyer, addressing various reform proposals made by critics of the current process and crediting President Clinton's protracted selection process with restoring some decorum to the proceedings.

"John Anthony Maltese sets out to explain how the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominees has arrived at its present point -- and he succeeds admirably by interweaving historical and contemporary materials. He demonstrates precisely when and how interest groups became involved in the process and when and how the White House became actively involved in, as he puts it, 'selling' the nominees. I know of no other work that more thoroughly mines the presidential papers and other archival materials, and effectively integrates contemporary scholarship." -- Sheldon Goldman, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

"A model of concise and careful scholarship." -- Journal of Politics

Think that controversial Supreme Court confirmation hearings are a recent phenomenon? You may be surprised to learn of the large numbers of rejections of nominations to the Court in the 19th century for reasons one might think trivial today. John Anthony Maltese documents the increased role of special-interest groups in the nominations process; as recently as 1970, a justice could be nominated and approved with a day of hearings without a single organization testifying--without even a specific public statement of support from the president. In contrast, the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings lasted more than 10 days, with representatives from 60 organizations filling thousands of transcript pages with their testimony. Because of the necessarily small sample sizes, Maltese occasionally has to torture his data to come to his conclusions (how much does President John Tyler's nomination troubles in the 1840s really tell us about today's system?), but he provides a brisk overview of the process, its increased politicization, and President Clinton's success in avoiding divisive confirmation battles. --Ted Frank