As the role of the courts grows, so do nominations controversies; the President and the Senate become partners in the process

While the power of the federal judiciary to shape policy has been acknowledged for most of American history, the composition of the federal bench has become the subject of intense debate only in relatively recent times.

Disputes over Supreme Court nominations have arisen intermittently since the earliest days of the Republic, but the nomination and confirmation of lower court judges was traditionally a low-visibility process dominated by patronage and legislative courtesy. In recent decades, however, presidents have sought to extend their policy legacy by appointing like-minded individuals to the federal bench. Most notably, the Reagan Administration worked aggressively to populate the lower courts with young conservative lawyers who shared the President's distrust of federal authority, a practice continued by President George H.W. Bush and also pursued by President George W. Bush.

As Presidents began using judicial nominations to further their policy goals, the Senate heightened its involvement under the Constitution's Advise and Consent clause. Debate over the composition of the federal bench is now a battlefield in the policy wars between the two major political parties. Although some may wish this were not so because it tends to make judicial nominees appear more political, the heightened scrutiny of judicial nominations by both the President and the Senate is a fact of modern American government, as indicated by the precedent offered by the Ginsburg hearings.