This afternoon, I hope folks can join us for a discussion of Christopher Eisgruber’s latest book, "The Next Justice." It will be hosted by professor Rebecca Brown, who is the Newton Professor of Constitutional Law at USC.

The book is a great exploration of the process of selecting justices for SCOTUS: what we do well, and where we fail, in the selection, advice and consent processes.

Eisgruber’s most substantial contribution in this book is suggested lines of questioning for nominee hearings. As Intrepid Liberal Journal put it:

Eisgruber however argues in his book that the senate should ask more open-ended questions of prospective nominees about their judicial philosophies. Too often senators attempt to trap nominees with "gotcha" questions or ask about specific issues such as abortion that that can easily be deflected to "preserve their integrity" prior to joining the Supreme Court. Ultimately, little is learned and unless opposition interest groups get any traction or a scandal emerges, the nominee is likely to sail through without defending or explaining their ideology.

One example of the sort of question Eisgruber suggests asking is,

"The late Chief Justice William Rehinquist wrote that `manifold provisions of the Constitution with which judges must deal are by no means crystal clear in their import, and reasonable minds may differ as to which interpretation is proper.’ Could you tell us something about the values and purposes that will guide you when you interpret provisions like the Equal Protection Clause? How do those values and purposes distinguish your approach from those taken by other justices?"

Eisgruber contends this approach has a better chance of determining the sort of justice a nominee is likely to be. He also argues that it will facilitate more moderate nominees and discourage stealth extremists.

Imagine a hearing where we learned something beyond how well a nominee had been coached in murder board sessions?

Hope you can join us for the discussion this afternoon!