A First Amendment Profile of the Supreme Court focuses on the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court and determines their frames for assessing First Amendment cases. In each of the chapters, a justice will be profiled in terms of his or her claims during the nomination hearings and the positions they have taken in significant Supreme Court decisions. The object of these chapters is to provide a rhetorical frame that each of these justices would find appealing regarding First Amendment case law.

How much do Supreme Court nominees reveal at their confirmation hearings, and how do their answers affect senators' votes?

Contents: (1) Introduction: Supreme Court Appointments in Historical Context; (2) Demographic Characteristics: Race and Ethnicity; Gender; Religion; (3) Professional Background: Experience in Private Practice; Experience as a Government Attorney; Judicial Experience; Prior Political Experience; Prior Military Experience; (4) Educational Background: Type of Legal Training; Law School Education; (5) Conclusion.

This volume explores the Supreme Court Justice appointment process--from Presidential announcement, Judiciary Committee investigation, confirmation hearings, vote, and report to the Senate, through Senate debate and vote on the nomination.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Supreme Court nominations were driven by presidents, senators, and some legal community elites. Many nominations were quick processes with little Senate deliberation, minimal publicity and almost no public involvement. Today, however, confirmation takes 81 days on average-Justice Antonin Scalia's former seat has already taken much longer to fill-and it is typically a media spectacle. How did the Supreme Court nomination process become so public and so nakedly political? What forces led to the current high-stakes status of the process? How could we implement reforms to improve the process? In Supreme Democracy: The End of Elitism in the Supreme Court Nominations, Richard Davis, an eminent scholar of American politics and the courts, traces the history of nominations from the early republic to the present. He examines the component parts of the nomination process one by one: the presidential nomination stage, the confirmation management process, the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the increasing involvement over time of interest groups, the news media, and public opinion. The most dramatic development, however, has been the democratization of politics. Davis delves into the constitutional underpinnings of the nomination process and its traditional form before describing a more democratic process that has emerged in the past half century. He details the struggle over image-making between supporters and opponents intended to influence the news media and public opinion. Most importantly, he provides a thorough examination of whether or not increasing democracy always produces better governance, and a better Court. Not only an authoritative analysis of the Supreme Court nomination process from the founding era to the present, Supreme Democracy will be an essential guide to all of the protracted nomination battles yet to come.

Contents: (1) Pres. Selection of a Nominee: Senate Advice; Advice from Other Sources; Criteria for Selecting a Nominee; Background Invest.; Recess Appoint. to the Court; (2) Consid. by the Senate Judiciary Comm.: Background: Senators Nominated to the Court; Open Hear.; Nominee Appear. at Confirm. Hear.; Comm. Involvement in Appoint. Process; Pre-Hearing Stage; Hearings; Reporting the Nomin.; (3) Senate Debate and Confirm. Vote; Bringing Nomin. to the Floor; Evaluate Nominees; Filibusters and Motions to End Debate; Voice Votes, Roll Calls, and Vote Margins; Reconsid. of the Confirm. Vote; Nomin. That Failed to be Confirmed; Judiciary Comm. to Further Examine the Nomin.; After Senate Confirm.

The fundamental fact about our Constitution is that it is old -- the oldest written constitution in the world. The fundamental challenge for interpreters of the Constitution is how to read that old document over time. In Fidelity & Constraint, legal scholar Lawrence Lessig explains that one of the most basic approaches to interpreting the constitution is the process of translation. Indeed, some of the most significant shifts in constitutional doctrine are products of the evolution of the translation process over time. In every new era, judges understand their translations as instances of "interpretive fidelity," framed within each new temporal context. Yet, as Lessig also argues, there is a repeatedly occurring countermove that upends the process of translation. Throughout American history, there has been a second fidelity in addition to interpretive fidelity: what Lessig calls "fidelity to role." In each of the cycles of translation that he describes, the role of the judge -- the ultimate translator -- has evolved too. Old ways of interpreting the text now become illegitimate because they do not match up with the judge's perceived role. And when that conflict occurs, the practice of judges within our tradition has been to follow the guidance of a fidelity to role. Ultimately, Lessig not only shows us how important the concept of translation is to constitutional interpretation, but also exposes the institutional limits on this practice. The first work of both constitutional and foundational theory by one of America's leading legal minds, Fidelity & Constraint maps strategies that both help judges understand the fundamental conflict at the heart of interpretation whenever it arises and work around the limits it inevitably creates.