Judicial Choices

Essay by Anonymous UserUniversity, Bachelor'sB, October 1996

download word file, 3 pages 4.7

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

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...