Politics and the judiciary 227tributed a large number of judges with a liberal activist view of the role of
the judiciary. After President Reagan took office in 1981, a sustained effort
was made to reverse this liberal activist character of the federal judiciary
and to secure the appointment of judges whose ideology would reflect the
conservative views of the administration. Before making nominations, the
President’s staff undertook intensive studies of the nominees’ previously
expressed views to try to ensure that their future judicial decisions would
reflect the values held by the Reagan administration. President George W.
Bush in nominating justices to the Court came under unprecedented pres-
sure to nominate conservatives, and particularly to nominate justices who
might take an anti-abortion stance. In the event, Bush’s nominations of John
G. Roberts as Chief Justice and Samuel A. Alito as Associate Justice were
confirmed. However, the president’s power to influence the course of judicial
decisions should not be overestimated. Once appointed, the justices are by
no means the mere creatures of the men who appointed them, and many
presidents have been incensed by the opinions of justices that they had raised
to the supreme bench.
The Senate’s power to reject judicial nominees is not something that can
be taken lightly; the administration must consult with senatorial leaders,
and in the case of lower court appointees the approval of the senior Senator
of the president’s party from the nominee’s home state must be obtained.
The president delegates the selection of lower court judges to the Deputy
Attorney General, but the selection of Supreme Court justices will be a mat-
ter for his personal attention. Although the Senate treats the President’s
nominations with respect, it exercises its right to reject them. There was a
bitter contest over the nomination of Justice Brandeis in 1916, and in 1930
John J. Parker was rejected by the Senate. The most spectacular exercise of
the power of the Senate occurred in 1968, when it forced President Johnson
to withdraw the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for the position of chief
justice. President Nixon was subjected to defeat on two successive nomina-
tions, those of Clement F. Haynsworth and G. Harold Carswell. President
Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987 became the object of a
bitter battle in the Senate. The Republican President had nominated a judge
with a very conservative record; the Democrats had a majority in the Senate,
and the more liberal members were strongly opposed to Bork. His nomina-
tion was defeated by fifty-eight votes to forty-two. The Senate was the stage
for another fight when President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas in 1991,
only to have the judge’s former colleague, Anita Hill, publicly accuse him of
sexual harassment; Thomas was nevertheless confirmed.
The president’s nominations are considered in the first place by the Sen-
ate Judiciary Committee, which holds public hearings where the nominees
are questioned by members of the Committee about their views on the issues
that come before the Court, about their previous careers, and in the cases
of judges, the decisions they have made and the opinions they have written.
The committee then makes its recommendation to the Senate. Evidence is