[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Because all have been drawn into the process,they are strongly motivated to emerge at the other end without dam-age to their respective positions, and perhaps become even strongervis-à-vis other players.Future NominationsThe potential for external force involvement has not diminished overtime.Media coverage and interest group concern, as well as capabilityto influence the process, still exist as potential factors in the conductof the nomination process.The capability for media coverage of nominations has not changed.CNN and C-SPAN continue their policies of covering live, or on adelayed basis, events considered of great import to national policy,such as congressional hearings.With the creation of Court TV, a chan- 156 electing justicenel devoted to courtroom coverage, the options for nomination cover-age have even been expanded.Since the Bork and Thomas nominations, each new appointmentcarries the potential for high drama produced by conflict between thepresident and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and opposinginterest groups.Moreover, the drama may be accentuated by scandalrevealed by the investigative research conducted by these groups andby the press itself.Because few nominees already possess high namerecognition among the public, the role of the press in introducing theindividual to the public produces a plethora of personality pieces, aswell as the opportunity for image shaping.Interest groups are continually poised for involvement in nomi-nations.Groups such as the Alliance for Justice, the Women s LegalDefense Fund, the National Organization for Women, and the NationalAbortion Rights Action League on the left and National Right to Life,Americans United for Life, Family Research Council, and ConcernedWomen for America on the right are no less capable of mobilizingthan in the past.Moreover, as discussed previously, recently they haveacted aggressively even in confirmations of lower court judges.Public attention to the Court predicts public involvement in thenomination process.Decisions of the Court remain of interest to thepublic.The Bush v.Gore case was closely followed, understandably.But other cases also have acquired public attention in areas such asflag burning, abortion, right to die, and school vouchers.42The stage is set for continued external player involvement in theSupreme Court nomination process.Groups mobilize to affect presi-dential selection and confirmation.The news media become the objectof group, White House, and Senate attention but offer their own inde-pendent contribution as well.The public weighs in with opinions onthe merits of confirmation. 6Reforming the ProcessClearly, these external players will not go away.For groups or themedia or the public to lose interest, the judicial branch would have tobe stripped of policy-making power, an unlikely occurrence since ithas become a useful branch of last resort for various stripes of issueactivists not to mention the fact that the Court itself is not inclinedto divest itself of political power.The introduction of these forces has created a process divergentfrom that outlined in the Constitution.It produces a hybrid process,where the constitutional requirements that favor elites and exclude thegeneral public collide with the current version of the process, whereexternal forces, including the general public, actually help shape theoutcome.The formal outline of the process should conform to whatthe process actually has become.The judicial selection process was designed under the Constitutionas elite-dominated.However, that domination is now challenged bythe role of external forces.They perform functions today that werenot acknowledged originally in the Constitution.The process statu-torily and perhaps even constitutionally should be changed to reflectthe reality of external players rather than the false idea of exclusiveelite involvement.Changing our public official selection processes to reflect democratictrends is hardly a new feature of American politics [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Because all have been drawn into the process,they are strongly motivated to emerge at the other end without dam-age to their respective positions, and perhaps become even strongervis-à-vis other players.Future NominationsThe potential for external force involvement has not diminished overtime.Media coverage and interest group concern, as well as capabilityto influence the process, still exist as potential factors in the conductof the nomination process.The capability for media coverage of nominations has not changed.CNN and C-SPAN continue their policies of covering live, or on adelayed basis, events considered of great import to national policy,such as congressional hearings.With the creation of Court TV, a chan- 156 electing justicenel devoted to courtroom coverage, the options for nomination cover-age have even been expanded.Since the Bork and Thomas nominations, each new appointmentcarries the potential for high drama produced by conflict between thepresident and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and opposinginterest groups.Moreover, the drama may be accentuated by scandalrevealed by the investigative research conducted by these groups andby the press itself.Because few nominees already possess high namerecognition among the public, the role of the press in introducing theindividual to the public produces a plethora of personality pieces, aswell as the opportunity for image shaping.Interest groups are continually poised for involvement in nomi-nations.Groups such as the Alliance for Justice, the Women s LegalDefense Fund, the National Organization for Women, and the NationalAbortion Rights Action League on the left and National Right to Life,Americans United for Life, Family Research Council, and ConcernedWomen for America on the right are no less capable of mobilizingthan in the past.Moreover, as discussed previously, recently they haveacted aggressively even in confirmations of lower court judges.Public attention to the Court predicts public involvement in thenomination process.Decisions of the Court remain of interest to thepublic.The Bush v.Gore case was closely followed, understandably.But other cases also have acquired public attention in areas such asflag burning, abortion, right to die, and school vouchers.42The stage is set for continued external player involvement in theSupreme Court nomination process.Groups mobilize to affect presi-dential selection and confirmation.The news media become the objectof group, White House, and Senate attention but offer their own inde-pendent contribution as well.The public weighs in with opinions onthe merits of confirmation. 6Reforming the ProcessClearly, these external players will not go away.For groups or themedia or the public to lose interest, the judicial branch would have tobe stripped of policy-making power, an unlikely occurrence since ithas become a useful branch of last resort for various stripes of issueactivists not to mention the fact that the Court itself is not inclinedto divest itself of political power.The introduction of these forces has created a process divergentfrom that outlined in the Constitution.It produces a hybrid process,where the constitutional requirements that favor elites and exclude thegeneral public collide with the current version of the process, whereexternal forces, including the general public, actually help shape theoutcome.The formal outline of the process should conform to whatthe process actually has become.The judicial selection process was designed under the Constitutionas elite-dominated.However, that domination is now challenged bythe role of external forces.They perform functions today that werenot acknowledged originally in the Constitution.The process statu-torily and perhaps even constitutionally should be changed to reflectthe reality of external players rather than the false idea of exclusiveelite involvement.Changing our public official selection processes to reflect democratictrends is hardly a new feature of American politics [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]