Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?

Opinion & Commentary: Judicial nomination process is more broken than you think

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

In a recent Washington Post commentary about nominating a new Supreme Court justice, Benjamin Wittes writes: "the only rule that governs the confirmation process is the law of the jungle: There are no rules." Wittes is editor of the Lawfare blog, and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. He talks with MPR News host Kerri Miller about how virtually all federal judicial nominations have become political and what it means for the justice in the U.S.

Wittes co-wrote the commentary with former appellate court nominee Miguel A. Estrada.