Presidents must balance confirmability against ideological purity when choosing nominees

Evidence

President Clinton appointed 305 district judges and 61 appeals court judges during his two terms. However, he did not view these appointments as a major part of his policy agenda and placed less emphasis on appointing ideologically compatible judges than his predecessors had. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 493 (#expands, via linked claim)

His opinions during his 15 years on the bench confirmed that he was a judicial conservative, and his nomination was greeted with enthusiasm by Republican conservatives; Senator Trent Lott described the nomination as “a home run.” Democratic senators and liberal groups were considerably less pleased. The Feminist Majority Foundation charged that Alito would “turn back the clock on women’s rights and civil rights,” while the Alliance for Justice warned that he would tip the Court “in a direction that could jeopardize our most cherished rights and freedoms.” Yet as Senator Mike DeWine noted: “This nominee should not have shocked anyone. George Bush won the election.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 365 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Nominees without a judicial record face credibility problems that can sink them — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 364; Presidents differ sharply in how much ideological screening they apply to judicial nominees — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 493; Merit selection transforms rather than removes politics from judicial selection (+1 more)

Related

• Presidents differ sharply in how much ideological screening they apply to judicial nominees (similarity 0.91)
• Senators confirm nominees whose rulings reflect the winning president’s platform (similarity 0.88)
• Nominees without a judicial record face credibility problems that can sink them (similarity 0.85)
• Judicial merit is necessary but never decisive in federal appointments. (similarity 0.80)
• Sitting justices rarely change views, so screening nominees works (similarity 0.80)
• Ideology has replaced patronage in appeals court selection since recent decades (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Presidents differ sharply in how much ideological screening they apply to judicial nominees #expands (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 493
• Senators confirm nominees whose rulings reflect the winning president’s platform #corroborates (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 365
• Merit selection transforms rather than removes politics from judicial selection #complicates (0.75)