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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Georgetown journal of law & public policy 2021-01, Vol.19 (1), p.317
1. Verfasser: Williams, Nathan A
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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