Rejecting the Confirmation Process: Modern Standards for Investigating Nominees to the Supreme Court
Elimination of the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 upended the procedural calculus used by modern Presidents. No longer did endogenous rules encourage the selection of a nominee capable of attracting broad support in the upper house a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Georgetown journal of law & public policy 2021-01, Vol.19 (1), p.317 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 317 |
container_title | The Georgetown journal of law & public policy |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Williams, Nathan A |
description | Elimination of the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 upended the procedural calculus used by modern Presidents. No longer did endogenous rules encourage the selection of a nominee capable of attracting broad support in the upper house as long as the president's party controlled the majority in the Senate at the same time. In mid-2018, this led to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the first appointment following the rule change, whose breadth of experience in public-life threatened discovery of unexplored vulnerabilities for Committee investigators. Ultimately, his nomination forced the most expansive investigation of any nominee to the Supreme Court in history. His background file exceeded one million pages of documents detailing his tenure in roles across the executive and judicial branches. Yet his confirmation almost met defeat from an allegation undisclosed to investigators until the eleventh hour. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A674070840</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A674070840</galeid><sourcerecordid>A674070840</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1050-1c92d44b61f2617373041a47c527907e9a08ed08789b9f7c39ac0ec000fff7653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptjF1LwzAYhXOh4Jz-h4DXlTdt0rTejeLHYH7g9HpkyZua0SaSZP5-6_RGGOfiwOE5zwmZMVHVhQApz8h5SjuAknPRzIh5xR3q7HxP8wfSLnjr4qiyC56-xKAxpRv6GAxGT9dZeaOiSdSGSJf-C1N2vTqcn8LoPGKiORxE6_1nxPFHuI_5gpxaNSS8_Os5eb-7feseitXz_bJbrIqegYCC6bY0nG9rZsuayUpWwJniUotStiCxVdCggUY27ba1Ulet0oAaAKy1shbVnFz9ens14MZ5G3JUenRJbxa15CCh4TBRxRGqR49RDcGjddP8j78-wk8xODp95PAN391v2g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rejecting the Confirmation Process: Modern Standards for Investigating Nominees to the Supreme Court</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Williams, Nathan A</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, Nathan A</creatorcontrib><description>Elimination of the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 upended the procedural calculus used by modern Presidents. No longer did endogenous rules encourage the selection of a nominee capable of attracting broad support in the upper house as long as the president's party controlled the majority in the Senate at the same time. In mid-2018, this led to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the first appointment following the rule change, whose breadth of experience in public-life threatened discovery of unexplored vulnerabilities for Committee investigators. Ultimately, his nomination forced the most expansive investigation of any nominee to the Supreme Court in history. His background file exceeded one million pages of documents detailing his tenure in roles across the executive and judicial branches. Yet his confirmation almost met defeat from an allegation undisclosed to investigators until the eleventh hour.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1536-5077</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Georgetown University Law Center</publisher><subject>Evaluation ; Governmental investigations ; Investigations ; Judicial selection ; Management ; Methods ; Political aspects ; Supreme Court justices</subject><ispartof>The Georgetown journal of law & public policy, 2021-01, Vol.19 (1), p.317</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Georgetown University Law Center</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, Nathan A</creatorcontrib><title>Rejecting the Confirmation Process: Modern Standards for Investigating Nominees to the Supreme Court</title><title>The Georgetown journal of law & public policy</title><description>Elimination of the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 upended the procedural calculus used by modern Presidents. No longer did endogenous rules encourage the selection of a nominee capable of attracting broad support in the upper house as long as the president's party controlled the majority in the Senate at the same time. In mid-2018, this led to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the first appointment following the rule change, whose breadth of experience in public-life threatened discovery of unexplored vulnerabilities for Committee investigators. Ultimately, his nomination forced the most expansive investigation of any nominee to the Supreme Court in history. His background file exceeded one million pages of documents detailing his tenure in roles across the executive and judicial branches. Yet his confirmation almost met defeat from an allegation undisclosed to investigators until the eleventh hour.</description><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Governmental investigations</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Judicial selection</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Political aspects</subject><subject>Supreme Court justices</subject><issn>1536-5077</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptjF1LwzAYhXOh4Jz-h4DXlTdt0rTejeLHYH7g9HpkyZua0SaSZP5-6_RGGOfiwOE5zwmZMVHVhQApz8h5SjuAknPRzIh5xR3q7HxP8wfSLnjr4qiyC56-xKAxpRv6GAxGT9dZeaOiSdSGSJf-C1N2vTqcn8LoPGKiORxE6_1nxPFHuI_5gpxaNSS8_Os5eb-7feseitXz_bJbrIqegYCC6bY0nG9rZsuayUpWwJniUotStiCxVdCggUY27ba1Ulet0oAaAKy1shbVnFz9ens14MZ5G3JUenRJbxa15CCh4TBRxRGqR49RDcGjddP8j78-wk8xODp95PAN391v2g</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Williams, Nathan A</creator><general>Georgetown University Law Center</general><scope>ILT</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Rejecting the Confirmation Process: Modern Standards for Investigating Nominees to the Supreme Court</title><author>Williams, Nathan A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1050-1c92d44b61f2617373041a47c527907e9a08ed08789b9f7c39ac0ec000fff7653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Governmental investigations</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Judicial selection</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Political aspects</topic><topic>Supreme Court justices</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, Nathan A</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><jtitle>The Georgetown journal of law & public policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, Nathan A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rejecting the Confirmation Process: Modern Standards for Investigating Nominees to the Supreme Court</atitle><jtitle>The Georgetown journal of law & public policy</jtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>317</spage><pages>317-</pages><issn>1536-5077</issn><abstract>Elimination of the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 upended the procedural calculus used by modern Presidents. No longer did endogenous rules encourage the selection of a nominee capable of attracting broad support in the upper house as long as the president's party controlled the majority in the Senate at the same time. In mid-2018, this led to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the first appointment following the rule change, whose breadth of experience in public-life threatened discovery of unexplored vulnerabilities for Committee investigators. Ultimately, his nomination forced the most expansive investigation of any nominee to the Supreme Court in history. His background file exceeded one million pages of documents detailing his tenure in roles across the executive and judicial branches. Yet his confirmation almost met defeat from an allegation undisclosed to investigators until the eleventh hour.</abstract><pub>Georgetown University Law Center</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1536-5077 |
ispartof | The Georgetown journal of law & public policy, 2021-01, Vol.19 (1), p.317 |
issn | 1536-5077 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A674070840 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Evaluation Governmental investigations Investigations Judicial selection Management Methods Political aspects Supreme Court justices |
title | Rejecting the Confirmation Process: Modern Standards for Investigating Nominees to the Supreme Court |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T01%3A45%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rejecting%20the%20Confirmation%20Process:%20Modern%20Standards%20for%20Investigating%20Nominees%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court&rft.jtitle=The%20Georgetown%20journal%20of%20law%20&%20public%20policy&rft.au=Williams,%20Nathan%20A&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=317&rft.pages=317-&rft.issn=1536-5077&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale%3EA674070840%3C/gale%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A674070840&rfr_iscdi=true |