Judicial Choices
Supreme Court conformations, much like everything else in politics
and life, changed over the years. Conformations grew from insignificant and
routine appointments to vital and painstakingly prolonged trials, because of
the changes in the political parties and institutions. The parties found the
Supreme Court to be a tool for increasing their power, which caused an
increased interest in conformations. The change in the Senate to less
hierarchical institution played part to the strategy of nomination for the
president. The court played the role of power for the parties, through its
liberal or conservative decisions. In Judicial Choices, Mark Silverstein
explains the changes in the conformations by examining the changes in the
Democratic party, Republican party, Senate, and the power of the judiciary.
Conformations affected political parties a great deal because they
created new constituency and showed a dominance of power. The lose of the
Democratic party's hegemony caused it to find new methods of furthering its
First Floor at the Statute of John Marshall, quota...
U.S. Supreme Court building.
Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Build...agenda. Prior to the 1960s, the Democratic party maintained control of the
electorate with an overwhelming percentage.1 The New Deal produced interest
from a 'mass constituency' for the Democratic party because of the social
programs. Many white southern democrats became republicans because of the
increased number of blacks in the Democratic party. Many white union members
and Catholics also left the party because they no longer thought of
themselves as the working middle class. 'The disorder in the party produced
among other things a new attention to the staffing of the federal
judiciary.'2 Because of the lose in constituency, the Democratic party no
longer had control of the presidency so it needed to find other means to
further its agenda. The supreme court was that other method as displayed by
the Warren Court after deciding liberal opinions like Roe v. Wade. The...