| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 107.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 162 words from this article are provided below; about 536 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 107.2 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Canada and the United States

Michael J. Gerhardt. The Federal Appointment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis. (Constitutional Conflicts.) Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 2000. Pp. ix, 400. $37.95.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a respected scholar of presidential impeachment and constitutional theory, purports to offer a comprehensive examination of the origins, structure, and processes by which federal judges have reached the bench. His study also includes an analysis of the major players (presidents, senators, party officials, and the attorney general) in that process, along with suggestions for future reforms. Gerhardt gives particular attention to some of the schemes touted as ways of reducing the partisan and political influences on the federal judicial appointments process. These suggestions include proposals that judges no longer serve during good behavior (i.e. are not subject to term limits) and that the confirmation of Supreme Court justices be based on a supermajoritarian vote of the Senate. Wisely, Gerhardt labels both propositions "problematic" (p. 291). . . .

There are about 536 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.