Judicial nominees must satisfy both confirmability and ideological expectations

Evidence

Political considerations constrained the range of choice available to the president in selecting nominees. Although Republicans controlled the Senate, which would have to confirm his nominees, Democrats had successfully filibustered some of his nominees for the Court of Appeals, claiming that they were too conservative; Bush wanted his nominees for the Supreme Court to avoid a similar fate. But if his nominees were not sufficiently conservative, he risked alienating his conservative political base, which remembered very well that his father had appointed Justice David Souter, who had become one of the most liberal justices on the current Supreme Court. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 361

Categorization

• XREF: The Souter example illustrates the attitudinal/ideological uncertainty that constrains presidential choice, relevant to the course’s study of judges as strategic actors. — connects to: Reagan screened judicial nominees for ideological conformity — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 479; Appeals court nominee fights show harsh ideological and partisan politics — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 512; Progressive openness transformed judicial confirmation into public politics — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 544 (+5 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing whether judicial ‘surprises’ like Souter are common enough to undermine the appointment-as-policy strategy.

Broader Connections

• Presidents must balance confirmability against ideological purity when choosing nominees #expands (0.95)
• Partisan judicial confirmation battles stem from structural features of the appointment process #expands (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 507
• Presidents differ sharply in how much ideological screening they apply to judicial nominees #qualifies (0.74) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 493
• Nominees without a judicial record face credibility problems that can sink them #expands (0.72) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 364