Started by a group of Stanford Law School students concerned about the dearth of reliable, unbiased information on pending and potential judicial nominees, the Stanford Judicial Review Project endeavors to inform the confirmation process for federal judges. We believe that the debate surrounding judicial nominations, often marked by angry rhetoric and partisan hyperbole, should at the very least be grounded in an accurate understanding of the nominee's views. Therefore, the project strives to provide thorough, unbiased information about judicial nominees by reviewing their own work--whether it be in law review articles, editorials, speeches, or judicial opinions.
Each report contains two parts: a short overview of the nominee's views across a range of legal issues, and detailed individual summaries of each case, article, book, or editorial that was selected for review. Once completed, the reports are circulated to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as other interested political and media groups, both inside and outside the Beltway. We believe that these reports are unique in their goal of providing decision makers with detailed, unbiased overviews of a nominee's writings.