The Supreme Court appointments process is broken, and the timing couldn't be worse--for liberals or conservatives. The Court is just one more solid conservative justice away from an ideological sea change--a hard-right turn on an array of issues that affect every American, from abortion to environmental protection. But neither those who look at this prospect with pleasure nor those who view it with horror will be able to make informed judgments about the next nominee to the Court--unless the appointments process is fixed now. In The Next Justice, Christopher Eisgruber boldly proposes a way to do just that. He describes a new and better manner of deliberating about who should serve on the Court--an approach that puts the burden on nominees to show that their judicial philosophies and politics are acceptable to senators and citizens alike. And he makes a new case for the virtue of judicial moderates.

Long on partisan rancor and short on serious discussion, today's appointments process reveals little about what kind of judge a nominee might make. Eisgruber argues that the solution is to investigate how nominees would answer a basic question about the Court's role: When and why is it beneficial for judges to trump the decisions of elected officials? Through an examination of the politics and history of the Court, Eisgruber demonstrates that pursuing this question would reveal far more about nominees than do other tactics, such as investigating their views of specific precedents or the framers' intentions.

Written with great clarity and energy, The Next Justice provides a welcome exit from the uninformative political theater of the current appointments process.

"With President Bush's recent Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court shifting the Court perceptibly to the right and the retirements of several liberal justices looming, the appointment process for the next justice promises to be a partisan and bruising affair. And, according to Christopher L. Eisgruber-former Supreme Court clerk and Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs at Princeton University-without a radical change in Senate Confirmation Hearings, the process will continually fail to provide solid reasons to confirm or reject a the nominee. Eisgruber argues that Justices have their own judicial philosophy and that Senators have the right to reject a nominee if they find the nominee's philosophy objectionable. That said, he also argues contends that the current exchange between nominees and Senators regarding often centering on how nominees might rule on specific controversial issues , is ill conceived anddamages the Court damaging to the Court. Eisgruber offersOffering a different approach to the self-indulgent and demonstrably futile examinations that Senators currently direct at nominees, an Eisengruber underscores this new methodapproach highlighted by with well-designedin-depth questions constructed to reach address nominees' fundamental approach to Constitutional law. Unfortunately, other than the growing consensus that the confirmation system is broken, Eisgruber offers no reason why the decision-makers he hopes to influence will abandon their deeply ingrained partisanship. Hopeful readersNevertheless, readers will side with Eisgruber , however, and applaud his concise and lucid case for a more thoughtful and workable process." Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

"Elegantly written, closely reasoned, and carefully researched, the book is well worth the reader's thought and time." Stewart Pollock, The Newark Star-Ledger

The focus of the book...is not on jurisprudence, but on the inadequacy of senatorial confirmation hearings.... Eisgruber recommends that the Senate correct the confirmation process by following the example of the executive branch. Thus, the Senate should 'rely less on hearings and more on the kinds of evidence that presidents use': writings, speeches, and, for nominees who are judges, opinions. He continues that the Senate should not rely on futile inquiries about a nominee's commitment to strict construction of statutes or finding the original intent of the founding fathers. Instead, he suggests that the Senate ask nominees about their interpretation of abstract language in the U.S. Constitution...[This] is a thinking person's book. Anyone concerned about the future of the U.S. Supreme Court, however, will find it fascinating. Elegantly written, closely reasoned, and carefully researched, the book is well worth the reader's thought and time. Whether or not you agree with Eisgruber's suggestions and conclusions, remains stimulating, even provocative.

Eisgruber's book is vital. The process by which the public and the Senate currently consider Supreme Court nominees is broken. A fresh view is badly needed. provides this, and it has the potential to serve as a handbook to the next confirmation hearing. For all its erudition, the book is clear, brief, and well designed for nonlawyers. It doesn't go too far to predict that the next nominee will be asked many, if not all, of the questions that Eisgruber proposes.

Clearly written and containing many original ideas, this is an excellent book that I have no doubt will be widely read. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the extent of unanimous Supreme Court rulings and what this means for understanding the role of ideology on the court.

What an important book this is! With the next president likely to have at least one Supreme Court vacancy to fill--an appointment that could make a dramatic difference in the nation's direction for years to come--Christopher Eisgruber lays out a clear set of principles not only for the White House selection process but, more importantly, for Senate confirmation. And Eisgruber's focus is not just on the immediate policy impact; his goal is nothing less than to preserve the Constitution.

In this sensible and deeply considered book, Christopher Eisgruber tackles one of the most vexatious problems in contemporary American constitutionalism: what to do about the ever more perilous enterprise of Supreme Court nominations. Carefully avoiding a breathless, sensationalist approach to explaining how the Court really works, provides a measured account of how the modern Court has operated and the interpretive doctrines the justices apply. Eisgruber is deeply respectful of the Court, but his expectations of the Senate's role in judicial confirmations also run high. To everyone who worries that the nomination process has become a perverse caricature of what it should be, this book offers a thoughtful and compelling set of proposals for how it might yet be reformed.

The appointment process could gain a lot from Mr. Eisgruber's proposal...makes a start, in the calm before the circus of the next nomination, toward the debate we must have if we are to overcome the 'confusion'.

[A] concise and lucid case for a more thoughtful and workable process.

Eisgruber's analysis is essential reading for both lawmakers and the public.

After so many years of speaking past one another on the issue, members of the public now have, in , a new common language with which to discuss the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees. Unapologetically written with a clarity and transparency appropriate for the most general audience, it is a book from which everyone--including law professors, legislators, and judges themselves--can learn. With it, Christopher Eisgruber has established himself, along with giants like Ronald Dworkin and Cass Sunstein, among the important public intellectuals of our time.

What do we want in a Supreme Court Justice, and how should we get it? Eisgruber, a former Supreme Court clerk, argues that the first step is to do away with the idea that the process can or should be entirely divorced from politics...Eisgruber's practical recommendations for fixing the confirmation process boil down to having senators stand up for themselves during hearings, unafraid to say no, but his larger point is that, in pursuit of justice, moderation is the paramount virtue.

A superb and provocative treatment of a complex topic. Everyone interested in the future of the Supreme Court, and the nature of constitutional law, will benefit from Eisgruber's careful and exceptionally illuminating analysis.

Christopher L. Eisgruber is provost and Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs at Princeton University. He is the coauthor of "Religious Freedom and the Constitution" and the author of "Constitutional Self-Government". He is a former New York University law professor and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham.

Preface ix

Chapter 1. A Broken Process in Partisan Times 1

Chapter 2: Why Judges Cannot Avoid Political Controversy 17

Chapter 3: The Incoherence of Judicial Restraint 31

Chapter 4: Politics at the Court 51

Chapter 5: Why Judges Sometimes Agree When Politicians Cannot 73

Chapter 6: Judicial Philosophies and Why They Matter 98

Chapter 7: How Presidents Have Raised the Stakes 124

Chapter 8: Should the Senate Defer to the President? 144

Chapter 9: How to Change the Hearings 164

Chapter 10: What Kinds of Justices Should We Want? 178

C

hapter 11: The Path Forward 186 Notes 193

Index 225