<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The confirmation hearings of U.S. Supreme Court justices held by the Senate Judiciary Committee have been the subject of substantial criticism. Yet, critics typically fail to outline exactly what they want the hearings to accomplish. This article critically examines the purpose and history of confirmation hearings in an effort to shine light on the value that the hearings can add to the Supreme Court selection process. It also discusses three changes that can be made to help the confirmation hearings achieve their promise as an important venue for vetting future members of the Supreme Court and reaching a shared understanding of constitutional meanings among the American public.
</abstract>

J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law and Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor

Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Improving the Senate Judiciary Committee's Role in the Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This article examines how one personality trait of U.S. Supreme Court nominees influences the confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the article asks, are conscientious nominees more forthcoming when they answer Committee Members’ questions? And, second, are Committee Members, in turn, more or less likely to vote favorably for conscientious nominees? The paper builds a theory of how the conscientiousness trait shapes how nominees to the High Court interact with the Senate Judiciary Committee. To test our theory and answer the questions, we use confirmation hearing data starting from 1955 and extending through 2018, which includes both the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh hearings. We find that personality shapes interactions in the Senate judiciary committee in important and meaningful ways. Importantly, we find evidence that suggests a nominee's conscientiousness helps to explain why some Senators would be willing to vote for him or her even when that nominee might be less qualified.
</abstract>

Conscientiousness and Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This Article examines the general relationship between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the federal courts using a historical institutionalist analysis. The Senate Judiciary Committee, often known as the “Committee of Lawyers”, has adopted a very lawyer-like decision making process and style. This Article considers whether the large number of lawyers who sit on it serves to protect the federal courts from institutional attacks; it explores how the Committee can influence the number of judges sitting on any given federal court and help determine the boundaries of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Article explores why the Senate Judiciary Committee often serves as a graveyard for court-curbing proposals approved by the House Judiciary Committee or even the full House. The main focus of the Article is on how the Committee chair has considerable influence on the court-Congress relationship, although the chair must function within the overall decision-making culture of the Senate as a whole. It notes various chairs have approached the Blue Slip process for judicial nominees very differently, depending in part on whether the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same political party. Finally, the Article discusses how the Committee attracts ideologically extreme members of both parties and how this ideological polarization affects the Committee's interactions with the federal judiciary. The Article also provides some comparisons with the House Judiciary Committee on these issues.
</abstract>

The Senate Judiciary Committee's Relationship with the Federal Courts

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

A major legacy of the Obama presidency was the mark he left on the federal courts with respect to increasing judicial diversity. In particular, President Obama's appointments of women to the federal judiciary exceeded all previous presidents in terms of both absolute numbers and as a share of all judges; he also appointed a record-setting number of women of color to the lower federal courts. In this Article, I take an intersectional approach to exploring variation in the professional backgrounds, qualifications, and Senate confirmation experiences of Obama's female appeals court appointees, comparing them with George W. Bush and Bill Clinton appointees. These data reveal that women of color appointed by Obama differ from both white women and minority men in terms of ABA ratings, the types of professional experiences they bring with them, and whether they were confirmed by a roll call vote.
</abstract>

Assessing President Obama's Appointment of Women to the Federal Appellate Courts

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

South Africa is widely regarded as a model of a constitutional democracy on the African continent. This is partly because of the progressive Constitution adopted in 1996 and the fact that the country has consistently managed to conduct democratic, free and fair elections since the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. The sustainability of South Africa's constitutional democracy rests on the ability of the judiciary to ensure compliance with the constitution. The competence and credibility of the judiciary hinge on the appointment of judges who are able to reflect the diversity of the country, act without fear or favor, and develop a jurisprudence which creates and deepens constitutionalism. Judicial independence is a key component of the credibility of the judiciary. The inconsistent application of norms and standards when selecting and appointing judges tends to undermine the credibility of the appointments process.
The process of judicial selection and appointment in South Africa begins with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advertising the existing judicial vacancies. After that, the JSC shortlists candidates who are then interviewed. Following these interviews, the JSC shortlists candidates for possible appointment by the President. A review of the transcripts of interviews conducted by the JSC from April 2014 to October 2019 shows patterns of discrepancies in the types of questions which candidates vying for the same judicial position are required to answer. This Article explains the process followed by the JSC, and then identifies and analyzes the discrepancies in the process employed by the JSC. The Article then demonstrates the negative impact which the discrepancies have had on both the quality of the judicial selection process and the quality of candidates shortlisted for appointment. Furthermore, this Article makes recommendations on how South Africa can draw from international norms and standards as well as good practices from comparative jurisdictions, to enhance consistency and fairness in its judicial selection and appointments processes.
</abstract>

Judical Appointments in South Africa

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 1 (February 2024)

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 2 (September 2023)

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 1 (July 2023)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 2 (November 2022)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 3 (December 2021)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 2 (August 2021)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 1 (April 2021)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 3 (December 2020)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 2 (August 2020)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 1 (May 2020)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 3 (December 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 1 (May 2019)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 1 (May 2018)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 2 (December 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 1 (May 2017)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 1 (April 2016)

British Journal of American Legal Studies

 The British Journal of American Legal Studies is the premier American legal studies journal in Europe. This peer reviewed, cross-disciplinary journal is a bridge between American and European legal scholarship focused on American legal issues. The journal has a theoretical focus, but will occasionally publish articles with a doctrinal or empirical focus that cast light on important issue within the journal's remit. The journal highlights scholarship examining shared intellectual traditions between America, Britain and Europe. Authors whose work draws connections between American, British and European constitutional, political, historical, intellectual ideas and materials informing legal studies are particularly welcome to submit articles to the journal.　   Submissions/information for authors:  Submissions may be made through Scholastica and are typically but not exclusively between 10 - 15, 000 words excluding footnotes. The journal uses Bluebook referencing format.　  The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges.  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process.  Target Group   academics and practitioners in the field of constitutional law having relevance to the United States, including human rights, legal and political theory, socio-legal studies and legal history 