H3

1. a) Supreme Court nominees share ideologies with the president who nominated them, have held high administrative or judicial positions before, and most often share partisanship with the president.

b) Presidents seek to appoint federal judges who share their political views in order to "pack" the courts with justices who agree with them on policy. During the appointment process presidential aides survey candidates' past court decisions, speeches, writings, etc. to gather information on their ideology. Most justices have had experience as a judge before moving up to the Supreme Court,  some have held elective office, and a few have only had experience as attorneys. The fact that many of the justices have not had previous judicial experience demonstrates how a specific background is not necessarily needed for Supreme Court nomination, differing from judges appointed in the appellate courts. Along with matching ideologies, the president most often chooses a nominee who is a member of the same party as him/her. Most of the president's acquaintances are made through his/her party, and therefore nominees are most often chosen within that party, matching the political views of the president.

c) Elena Kagan had never served as a judge before receiving president Obama's nomination for Supreme Court justice. She was, however, dean of Harvard Law School and the White House said that her inexperience as a judge was a positive aspect, "giving her a different perspective from the other justices."

2. a) Interest groups use the threat of public protest and raise funds to support or retaliate against specific candidates.

b) In 1987 when president Reagan nominated Robert Bork, many interest groups rose up in protest. Groups like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU raised money to run ads in the newspaper and on television publicizing Bork's extremism. This caused public opinion to sway against Bork, in turn causing many Senators to also sway against Bork until he was ultimately denied confirmation.
c) Interest groups mobilized when Kagan was nominated. NARAL pro-choice America were specific in making sure that Kagan received a fair hearing, for they knew she would advocate in support of pro-choice legislation in the Supreme Court, for "Kagan's confirmation is a ripe opportunity for groups to push their agendas, mobilize their supporters, and raise money." NARAL was rapidly raising money and rallying support in order to make sure Kagan was nominated.

.