It’s hard enough to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it’s infinitely worse to be confirmed.
One of the most grueling personal examinations in American politics is the Senate confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice appointees. After a president selects a justice they want to appoint to the Court, the Senate has to vote to confirm the appointee in what is called a “nomination hearing.” The nomination hearing process itself has been brutal for many justice appointees of the long-gone past.
Robert Bork’s failed nomination comes to mind immediately. Bork’s nomination hearing brought to light his involvement with the Watergate investigation and was littered with scandal. While Senate confirmation hearings have been chaotic and controversy-filled for a long time, the media hysteria that the Senate creates with this process is fairly new.
At this point, I would be in serious journalistic trouble if I didn’t mention Justice Clarence Thomas’ landmark hearing and his response to the Senate. This hearing is chock full of American politician cameos; extra credit if you spot everyone. In Thomas’ unorthodox rebuttal, he calls the hearing a “circus and national disgrace.”
When you’re not looking at the facts of the hearing, and rather at the institutional behavior surrounding the process, it feels oh-so-high-school. This isn’t to say we should do away with the confirmation process; it’s absolutely a must. However, the way it’s politicized serves little use to the public that it’s supposedly trying to inform.
All of this is to say, the social and political maneuvering required to survive, even the preliminary steps of becoming a justice, are brutal and sometimes even feel cruel to watch. It seems reminiscent of pledging a fraternity. The way that fraternity brothers gather to vote on the confirmation of new pledges sometimes has the same juvenile feel of the new age Senate confirmations. Beyond that, in a much lighter sense, the jaunty way older fraternity members sometimes tease pledges is similar to how the Court treats their newest justice.Â
It’s no surprise that an institution enshrined in as much historical significance as the Supreme Court has a number of traditions. From the public view, some of the easiest ones to point out are the continued use of quill pens, the robes they wear, the seating arrangement, and the minimal use of technology.
On that last point, one of the unofficial rules of the Court up until about 2013 was not using email accounts. For the record, the court isn’t just full of Luddites — there were legitimate security interests at play — but the back-and-forth faxing of memos does still have a role in the culture of the Court today.Â
The rookie justice on the court has their own traditions to abide by, some I can’t imagine they’re too fond of. One of the places where the new justice is playfully teased the most is behind closed doors. When the Court holds a private conference, the only people allowed in the room are the nine justices, with absolutely no exceptions.
The public and clerks will sometimes need to be briefed on parts of the conversations that happen in private, which means someone has to take notes. That person is always the newest justice. In fact, it doesn’t matter how long you’ve been there. If you have the least seniority on the court — even if you’ve been the newest on the Court for 11 years like Justice Stephen Breyer was — you are responsible for the notes.
You’re also responsible for opening doors during these conferences. Anytime there is a knock, nobody will move to answer the door except for the newest justice. Justice Elena Kagan talks about her perspective on this newcomer business below.
Even sillier, the newest justice is responsible for being the liaison to the “cafeteria committee” in the Court building, and for adding new dishes to the menu. Justice Kagan famously added frozen yogurt, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently added pretzels.Â
These roles given to new justices are mostly just to poke fun at them. Despite the joking complaints of justices, these roles are understood to be part of the social initiation process into the court. They are beloved, albeit annoying for the newcomer, traditions that make the court feel more like a professional family than an institutional body.Â
Fraternity pledges and new justices or appointees have more in common than what meets the eye. Both are subject to scrupulous social examination by their peers and occasionally teased arbitrarily. So, what can we take away from this? If you’re pre-law and pledging a fraternity, I think you should take your pledging extremely seriously. Make sure you spend less time studying and much more time pledging this semester. You may or may not be prepared for the LSAT come test time, but you will definitely be ready for your Supreme Court appointment.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and Pinterest!