Reframing the Confirmation Debate

165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 21 (2016)

12 Pages Posted: 26 Sep 2016

See all articles by Adam Feldman

Adam Feldman

University of Southern California, Political Science

Date Written: July 5, 2016

Abstract

This essay reframes the current debate about Supreme Court Confirmation hearings from whether or not the Senate should be obligated to hold confirmation hearings without delay to why immediate confirmation hearings are so important for some and such an anathema to others. It does so by looking at how a Supreme Court of nine helps the Court to fulfill its Constitutional duties, but also how nine Justices may at the same time thwart the Court’s objectives. The essay proceeds by examining how ideological polarization among the Justices and not the Court’s size is the source of current (and past) tension and how the orientation and effect of the current polarization are antithetical to a well-functioning Supreme Court.

Keywords: confirmation, Supreme Court, Justices, Merrick Garland, ideology, polarization, judicial nominee, Justice Scalia

Suggested Citation

Feldman, Adam, Reframing the Confirmation Debate (July 5, 2016). 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 21 (2016), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2842665

Adam Feldman (Contact Author)

University of Southern California, Political Science ( email )

3518 Trousdale Parkway
VKC 327
Los Angeles, CA 90089
United States
(213)740-1695 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
53
Abstract Views
814
rank
408,039
PlumX Metrics