The Supreme Court has undoubtedly had a significant influence on shaping a myriad of issues within American society. With a great amount of power and influence pressed upon nine justices of the court, all political parties hope to achieve their ideologies and trying concerns through this particular court. Appointments to this coveted position come forth through Presidential declaration; of which a life selection is granted. Analyzing the effectiveness of one's appointments becomes vital to implicate desired results. Unfortunately; however, this has become quite the interesting analysis through the Rehnquist Court.
             President Reagan and Bush, both conservatives, have had the opportunity to appoint five of the seats currently filling the court. Because of such a once perceived conservative ideology of these five it becomes increasingly important to counteract with much more liberal appointments. President Clinton was given such an opportunity by safely appointing two more justices to the bench. The irony in the situation had increased when those justices who were blatantly supposed to vote in a conservative manner had indeed drifted towards "moderate" and even "liberal" decisions.
             The question arises: "Why might this be?" Obviously, some sort of court packing was utilized in those initial five conservative appointments. Yet, still a conversely contrasted ideology prevailed through many decisions of the court. The reading suggests in particular three possible explanations: institutional, jurisprudential and ideological. Institutional stems from the idea of political pressures posed onto each justice. Each individual is given a life appointment for
             the particular reason that they are not accountable to voters. Though one becomes succumbed to deliberate and attractive pressures from their 'party,' each justice may vote to counteract as such. Constitutional jurisprudential ideologic
             ...