Product Description

The author of the provocative books The Culture of Disbelief and Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby sheds new light on the process that has manufactured such public fiascoes as the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Lani Guinier travesty. "A lesson in the perils of the reforming spirit".-- Commentary.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1568376 in Books
• Published on: 1995-05-05
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Amazon.com Review
This book, Stephen L. Carter writes, "is about the difference between arguing the merits of a proposed appointment and turning the public debate into the intellectual equivalent of a barroom brawl." He does not take sides; he finds what happened to Robert Bork as distasteful as what happened to Lani Guinier. And, with a flair for sophisticated arguments couched in plain language evident throughout his work, he argues that the only way things will get better is if the American people redefine their attitude to public service, envisioning it as a job for those competent to perform it rather than a bonus to be handed out to those who have earned favor with ruling parties.

From Publishers Weekly
Carter offers his views on the Senate's confirmation process, highlighting such recent candidates as Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Lani Guinier and Zoe Baird.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Years after the defeat of Judge Robert Bork for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the lessons to be learned from the bruising confirmation fight are still debated. Carter (law, Yale Univ. Law Sch.) looks at the confirmation process, particularly focusing on the treatment given Judge Bork and to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1960s. Carter believes that decency and honesty are cornerstones of the confirmation process, both in how possible public officials are evaluated and how we may (and ought to) publicly disagree over substantive positions taken by these candidates. While the origins of Carter's book can be traced to earlier writings, this new book nonetheless seems to have been written in haste and is only a modest contributon to the literature. Certainly, the author is following up on the success of his The Culture of Disbelief (LJ 9/1/93). Still, the abuse heaped on Marshall, Bork, and, more recently, Lani Guinier is a stark reminder that the whole process deserves our attention. To that end, Carter offers some "modest proposals"-some of which could be implemented without amending the Consitution. Recommended as a somewhat useful commentary on current affairs.
Jerry E. Stephens, U.S. Court of Appeals Lib., Oklahoma City
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Customer Reviews

Excellent analysis of the federal confirmation process
It's been about nine years since Clarence Thomas was narrowly confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court, which makes it enough time to be able to reflect upon the passionate debate over whether he deserved the nomination/confirmation.

Not that Justice Thomas is the sole focus of this insightful book by Stephen Carter (a professor of law at Yale). Rather, Carter is interested in analyzing what has gone wrong with the nomination/confirmation process. His primary case studies include the rejection of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court and Lani Guinier for Deputy Attorney General (head of the Civil Rights Division), as well as the successful confirmations of Justice Thomas and Justice Thurgood Marshall (who Carter believes should have been confirmed easily, rather than subjected to ridiculous attacks by Southern senators).

In Carter's view, the central problem with the process is that candidates are presumed to be qualified, with the search on to root out disqualifying pasts. Thus, Zoe Baird, nominated for the Attorney General, was withdrawn when it turned out that she had a "nanny problem." Should she have been disqualified for that? According to Carter, maybe, maybe not. But the sequence and emphasis of questions is all wrong.

The process, he argues, should work something like this: (1) do not presume that the candidate is qualified; (2) if a potential disqualifying factor arises, determine how serious it is -- unqualified is uncurable, minor ethical lapse may be easily curable, and other matters in between.

Moreover, Carter's analysis is non-partisan. He aptly demonstrates that Guinier's candidacy went down in flames because her academic writing was grossly distorted (if even read) -- as was Bork's.

Finally, Carter is a clear and direct writer, and lay persons as well as those involved in law will find this a fascinating analysis of the nomination/confirmation process.