In Defense of Ideology: A Principled Approach to the Supreme Court Confirmation Process
Lori A. Ringhand
University of Georgia School of Law
March 16, 2009
William & Mary Bill of Rights, Forthcoming
UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-002
In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to re-think the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation process. Second, Professor Ringhand explains how an ideologically-based approach to the confirmations process is not just unobjectionable, but can in fact play a normatively desirable role in ongoing efforts to construct alternative constitutional narratives, narratives that attempt to guide or justify the use of judicial review while also incorporating a realistic understanding of the capacities of the Supreme Court. She concludes by reviewing the historic use of ideology in the confirmations process, and discussing several additional benefits that could result from the more open acknowledgement of the role ideology has - and does - play in that process.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 41
Keywords: Supreme Court, confirmation
JEL Classification: K49Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 18, 2009 ; Last revised: April 21, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.609 seconds