The announcement of Justice Blackman's retirement from the Supreme Court could have hurled the president, the Senate, and American society into a potentially divisive search for a new nominee to the Court. Rather than simply choosing the best possible candidate, the president instead compiles lists and weighs the political cost of pushing each candidate through the Senate and on to the Court.

Mark Silverstein's Judicious Choices: The New Politics of Supreme Court Confirmations takes a close look at the politics behind the confirmation process and the transformations of this process from a simple voice vote of the Senate to a tortured political spectacle.

The televised confirmation hearings on the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court captivated public attention and were among the most noteworthy domestic events in recent years. They were, however, only the most spectacular examples of the new politics of Supreme Court confirmations.

Since the defeat of Abe Fortas in 1968, the process of selecting and confirming nominees to the Supreme Court has shifted from tightly controlled, leadership-dominated deference to presidential choice to a thoroughly democratized process, shaped by extraordinary public participation and media coverage. It has become, in short, a process that reflects the best and worst of modern American politics.

Arguing that the modern judicial confirmation process is the result of changes in the larger political setting, Judicious Choices provides the reader with a unique perspective on American politics during the last quarter-century. Focusing on the fundamental shifts in the structure of national electoral politics as well as the expansion of judicial power, this book details the evolving political context surrounding the process of selecting and confirming our most important judges.

It's all politics, and Professor Silverstein helps the reader better appreciate why nominees to the Court are subject to the crucible of modern participatory democracy.