The simple constitutional rules for selection of federal judges in the United States remain in their original form, but the actual process of selecting judges has changed a great deal over time. The past few decades have seen a sharp change, a development highlighted by the yearlong battle over the Supreme Court vacancy that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

In Supreme Democracy, Richard Davis presents and develops a perspective on the changes that have occurred at the Supreme Court level. Building on a central theme of his 2005 book, Electing Justice, Davis emphasizes what he sees as the heart of the change: The process of staffing the Court has opened up to include a much broader range of participants. Traditionally, presidents and senators acted largely on their own, with only limited influence from outside the federal government. Moreover, during most of the twentieth century, the selection of justices was generally quiet and consensual. But since that time, “democratic elements—groups, party activists, the news media, and the public generally”—have transformed the selection process into one that is “loud and noisy and conflictual” (p. 216). In sum, “Supreme Court nominations today . . . are conducted much like other political processes in a democracy” (p. 16). Davis’s account is based on an array of primary and secondary sources.

After an introductory chapter that presents an overview of the book’s argument, the next two chapters discuss the period when the constitutional rules were adopted and present a detailed picture of what Davis calls “the traditional process” (p. 37) for selecting justices. Both chapters provide background for the book’s analysis of the changes that have occurred in the past half century.

The chapter that follows summarizes the growth of involvement by the “democratic elements.” The next three chapters examine the selection process of the current era more closely. These chapters look successively at presidential nominations, Senate confirmation, and efforts by presidential administrations to secure confirmation for nominees. They provide a broad picture of the selection of justices while emphasizing the ways that the democratization of the process has affected the practices of the president and Senate.

Davis amply documents the opening up of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations to broader participation, and he shows that the growth in outside involvement is a key element of the changes that have occurred in the selection of justices. Why did the process open up?

The author cites “democratic trends in American government generally” (p. 226) as one source of this change. Those democratic trends are reflected in actions by the president and Senate that facilitated outside involvement in the selection of Supreme Court justices by increasing transparency and access. Most of these changes were on the Senate side, including making floor debates public, holding public hearings at which nominees testify, and later allowing those hearings to be televised. On the presidential side, the tendency toward longer periods between the announcement of a vacancy and the selection of a nominee gives outside groups a better chance to lobby for and against potential nominees.

In Davis’s view, a second source of change relates specifically to the Supreme Court: “the perception that what the Court did affected” external players in the process (p. 102). Groups that care a great deal about the Court’s decisions have a powerful incentive to influence those decisions indirectly through the nomination and confirmation of new justices.

Davis does not explicitly cite political polarization in its various aspects as a separate source of change. But his account of the changes that have occurred provides evidence for the role of polarization in those changes. That is especially true of the book’s discussions of the roles of party activists and interest groups in the selection process. Arguably, polarization merits more direct attention as a source of change or at least as an impetus for other sources of change. The strong tendency for senators to divide along party lines in confirmation votes, beginning with the vote on Samuel Alito in 2006, suggests the impact of polarization.

In his concluding chapter, the author offers recommendations for change in the selection process to address what he sees as some negative effects of its democratization. Those recommendations range widely. He suggests constitutional changes, such as an 18-year term for justices, while recognizing that such changes are highly unlikely to occur. He also favors informal changes in the process, such as regular presidential consultation with senators before making nomination decisions.

Davis’s most intriguing proposal is one that is linked to the second source of change in the selection process that he posited. In his view, the Supreme Court should reduce the stakes in the selection process and thereby reduce the involvement of outside groups in that process by playing a less activist role in the making of public policy: “The Court must restrain itself” (p. 226). Whether or not that change is a real possibility, Davis’s proposal underlines the strength of the linkage between perceptions of the Court’s power and changes in the selection process. If the Supreme Court’s role in public policymaking has grown or at least become more apparent in the last several decades, it seems likely that presidents and senators would have responded to that change by creating a more policy-driven and contentious process, even in the absence of broader participation in the selection process.

Because there has been so much good research and writing on the selection of Supreme Court justices in recent years, one question that arises about any new book is whether it makes substantial new contributions. For Supreme Democracy, I think the answer is clearly yes.

To start with, Davis’s descriptions of the various aspects of the selection process are rich. Even scholars who are familiar with the process will learn some new things. The richness of these descriptions also enhances the book’s value for students, whether as a text or as a resource for their own research and writing.

Further, Davis’s analysis of developments in the selection of justices provides good insights into the changes that have occurred. To take one example, there is a widespread perception that the highly publicized 1987 battle over confirmation of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court marked the beginning of a new era in the selection of justices. In contrast, the book does well in identifying roots of change that date back even earlier than the less publicized confirmation battles of the late 1960s.

Finally, the book’s framing of changes in the selection process in terms of democratization is a very useful way to think about what changed and why. Of course, this is not the only perspective that can provide insights on those changes. But the theme of democratization binds together an array of developments and helps considerably in making sense of those developments.

Thus, I think that Supreme Democracy is a fine addition to the research on the selection of federal judges. It merits the attention of scholars and others who are interested in the selection process.