The Judicial Confirmation Process Isn't Broken; Our History Makes the Case -- by Trevor Parry-Giles.

Byline: University of Maryland, College Park

COLLEGE PARK, Md., July 13 (AScribe Newswire) -- Following is a commentary by Trevor Parry-Giles. Parry-Giles teaches political communication at the University of Maryland. His book, "The Character of Justice: Rhetoric, Law, and Politics in the Supreme Court Confirmation Process," will be published next spring by Michigan State University Press.

- - - -

The Judicial Confirmation Process Isn't Broken; Our History Makes the Case

To paraphrase the archetypal hero of the New Right, Ronald Reagan: There they go again. With Justice O'Connor's resignation from the Supreme Court, and the likely departure of even more justices in the near future, everyone from Robert Bork to Ken Duberstein, from possible nominee John Cornyn to the president himself, is calling for a "dignified" confirmation process -- a process that is not about politics but about qualifications.

The problem with all such calls for decorum is that they assume a false premise. Because of the contentious battles over Judge Bork's nomination in 1987, through to the struggles over a handful of President Bush's nominees, the right (and some on the left) want to perpetuate the myth that the judicial confirmation process is broken, that it destroys nominees and their reputations, that politics is corrupting the process.

But that's …