Advocacy Groups

Nowhere does the Constitution mention the role of advocacy groups, interest groups, or lobbyists in the political process. Yet, their role is critical to the operation of democracy in a society as large and complex as ours. Supreme Court nominations are no exception. Who among us has the time, the skill, or the resources to research the backgrounds and records of Supreme Court nominees? While we can rely on the press to provide some of that information, the fact is that advocacy groups have greater resources and incentive than newspapers to gather and disseminate detailed information about nominees. One has only to remember that advocacy groups, despite their exalted titles suggesting lofty ideals, are about special interests and particular points of view.

Judicial nominations now reflect the adversarial approach that characterizes our legal system. Advocates for two sides, for and against confirmation, make the best cases they can for their particular position. The difficulty comes in trying to decode the language used by these advocates and figuring out whether the information they provide is valid and reliable and whether or not they are being straight with you.

Those who favor confirmation of a nominee have a distinct advantage. There is a presumption in favor of any presidential nominee in the eyes of the public, and the president serves up a Supreme Court nomination with considerable fanfare, taking the opportunity to say how considered his judgment has been in selecting this individual from all of those qualified to serve. Supporters of the president accept the nominee immediately and virtually without reservation. Those who might be considered political adversaries of the president are at a disadvantage because they must wait until the nominee is announced to gather together and analyze the information they have in order to articulate an opposing view of the nominee's credentials. If the nominee is a high profile one with an extensive public record, a response can come quickly, as with Robert Bork. If the nominee is less well known and his or her public record is somewhat less substantial or available, then more time is needed to formulate a response.

Any number of advocacy groups will enter the arena regarding the nomination, soliciting your support and vying for your attention. Some groups are true coalitions of a number of groups, like the Alliance for Justice, which identifies itself as " . . . a national association of nearly sixty public interest organizations that advocate for civil rights, social justice, individual privacy, consumer, and environmental protections." Others are groups that work more at the individual level, soliciting individual memberships to help fund its activities and provide volunteers for grassroots activities. MoveOn.org, for example, claims 3.3 million members. Some work as foundations and think tanks, such as the Free Congress Foundation, that addresses a series of issue topics of which judicial selection may be only one. Still other organizations are specific to other interests, but see those interests as affected by the Supreme Court, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights or the Family Research Council. Finally, some organizations are barely more than fronts for money funneled to sponsor advertisements in behalf of a particular point of view.