ABSTRACT
The perennial controversy over the Supreme Court appointment process reached a new pitch of intensity during the Reagan-Bush era. Since the Supreme Court exercises a pervasive and growing influence on the lives of every American, the trend toward more careful scrutiny of nominees by both the Senate and the general public is consistent with a vital democracy. The adequacy of existing procedures for investigations has been tested by history, which demonstrates that most damaging information about Supreme Court nominees has been revealed during the confirmation process. A vigorous process recognizes the importance of the Court in American society, and tries to ensure that the person who eventually takes a seat on the Supreme Court is worthy of the public’s trust. Most reforms that have been proposed for the Supreme Court appointment process are either superfluous or would diminish the openness and vigor of the process.
