The confirmation mess

Nearly everyone agrees that we have made a mess of the constitutional process for selecting Supreme Court Justices, cabinet officers, and other top federal officials. From the bitter battle over the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 to the Nanny Problem that trapped so many potential public servants in 1993, we have developed a system in which the only way to defeat a nominee is to prove that he or she is "disqualified" - which means, in practice, finding a way to convince the public that the individual is a dangerous radical or has engaged in scandalous misconduct. In a lively and brilliantly argued work, Stephen L. Carter tells what's wrong with our confirmation process, explains how it got this way, and suggests what we can do to fix it. He reviews the most notorious recent confirmation battles - Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Lani Guinier, among many others - and puts them into historical context, reminding us of the bitter attacks on such nominees as Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall. Carter points out that with our current system, "we talk little about a nominee's qualifications. Instead, today's hearings, when anybody pays attention, are mostly about disqualifications." Ou