Posted by Orin Kerr:
Judicial Nomination Hearings and the Miers Example:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_30-2006_08_05.shtml#1154275169
I enjoyed [1]Jonathan's post below, and the [2]Wittes article that he
discuses, but I note that neither mentions the most recent example of
how extensive open hearings can make a significant difference to the
outcome of a nomination: the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet
Miers.
At least according to [3]news reports, it was widely believed by
around mid-October 2005 that the Miers nomination would stand or fall
based on whether Miers could establish herself at the hearings as a
fluent and well-informed voice on the Supreme Court and its
jurisprudence. Her nomination was pulled for a few reasons, I gather,
but, if [4]reports are to believed, one of them was a sense that Miers
would not thrive in the "kabuki dance" of live Senate hearings.
If those reports are true, then I think that's an important data
point to consider. Of course, how the example cuts depends on your
view of the Miers nomination, about which reasonable people can
differ. But I think it's important to view the role of hearings
through the lens of all of the recent nominations, not just the ones
that stayed viable through the period of Senate hearings.
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1154264576.shtml
2.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801470.html
3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801459.html
4.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702398.html?nav=rss_politics/administration
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
