Appointing officials owe no reasoned consistency across their decisions.

Evidence

In relation to the judicial nomination, in contrast, the President has what is called in the materials a _ower of continuing discretion. … Perhaps in the particular instance he will conclude that as between two possible nominees the fact that one of them comes from a locality not currently represented on the bench should be decisive in his favor. But this will not mean that he expects to give the same weight to geography in other appointments. … Perhaps the President’s predecessor followed a practice of consulting bar associations regularly about such nominations. The President may or may not conclude that such consultation would be a good idea in the present case. But he will think of himself, and properly so, as free to consult or not to consult, now or hereafter, as he thinks best. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2738

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Discretion differs by whether the actor must relate reasons across decisions. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2748; Appointed authority officials are immune to public and electoral pressure — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the…, 4516

Broader Connections

• Appointed authority officials are immune to public and electoral pressure #expands (0.75) — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 4516