A Supreme Court justice serves for life, no term limits. No reelection. Almost no way to remove them. So… who decides who gets that kind of power?

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore the constitutional design, evolution, and growing controversy of judicial confirmations. From the first public hearing 1916 to today’s highly publicized nomination battles, they unpack how these confirmations have transformed from quiet votes to political showdowns.

The conversation ranges from history to process to philosophy—covering why lifetime judicial appointments raise the stakes, how public hearings shape political narratives, and why the Supreme Court has become such a powerful player in our democracy.

Whether you're a court watcher or a civic nerd, this episode offers insights into the tensions, strategies, and consequences of placing judges on the highest bench in the land. Let’s dive in!

In This Episode

• (00:00:00) Introduction to judicial confirmations
• (00:00:30) Constitutional requirement for Senate consent
• (00:01:24) Historical context of confirmation hearings
• (00:02:27) Judicial independence and impeachment
• (00:04:25) Checks and balances in the confirmation process
• (00:06:01) Limitations of Senate confirmation
• (00:08:48) Congressional control over judiciary
• (00:10:14) Lengthy confirmation processes
• (00:12:24) Judicial confirmation process explained
• (00:13:31) Evolution of confirmation norms
• (00:16:05) Qualifications for Supreme Court justices
• (00:17:29) Politics in the nomination process
• (00:18:37) Partisanship in judicial confirmations
• (00:19:11) Historical context of confirmation battles
• (00:20:04) Consequences of judicial confirmations
• (00:21:48) Judicial philosophy debates
• (00:25:31) Public nature of confirmation hearings
• (00:26:42) Streamlining the confirmation process
• (00:28:28) Youth of recent nominees
• (00:28:56) Making the Supreme Court less important

Notable Quotes

• [00:02:07] "The stakes are much higher here than for executive confirmations because members of the judiciary serve for life, and the only way to get rid of them is an extremely costly process of impeachment." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:07:42] "You really can't control them. They serve for life once they are appointed. These are unelected gods on Mount Olympus. They can kind of do a lot of things, and you can't punish them a whole lot outside of impeachment." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:05:24] "The biggest engine of change in American constitutional law, if you want to change the law, you change the judges. That happens through judicial appointments in our system." — Matthew Brogdon
• [00:21:48] "What is it about a change in constitutional law? That’s a new thing. It’s a fight over judicial philosophy. Maybe that is new. I’m not sure if it is, but I’ve heard arguments that what is new isn’t partisanship; it’s the rift in judicial philosophy." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• [00:20:04] "What matters for whether a particular confirmation battle is contentious is its consequences. What’s at stake in that confirmation? If there’s not much at stake, nobody’s going to expend tons of political capital fighting over somebody who’s not going to change the way the law works." — Matthew Brogdon
• [00:26:47] "I would get rid of public hearings in a hot minute. Public confirmation hearings are just not helpful. The public aspect of it is the most time-consuming, the most contentious, and the least productive of it all." —