Inspired by the writing of Elena Kagan, I propose we aim to end the “vapid and hollow charade” of the confirmation hearing process that has left many senators feeling dissatisfied and handcuffed because of the level of avoidance displayed by the nominees. To solve this I propose establishing a committee that will use legal records of nominees’ opinions, judgments, and relevant jural writings to provide categorical reports of their judicial philosophies. They will cover:
· Rights of Individuals: Civil and Political
· Rights of Individuals: Economic, Social, and Cultural
· Group-Oriented Rights
· Limitations on Rights
· Application and Amendment of Constitutional Rights
Reports will detail overall impressions of the nominee, but will by requirement be a negative review if there’s insufficient written legal history. These reports will allow senators to have unbiased information for their questioning and vote determination. This will enable senators to vote for or against nominees for reasons of judicial philosophy and competency rather than for divisive personal reasons. This will be a benefit, as these breed partisan acrimony and lessen opportunities for future cooperation. They will also pressure the President to both nominate judges with substantial written legal history and nominate more moderate judges to avoid confirmation fights.