Final answer:
The nomination of Judge Robert Bork was contentious due to his conservative views, exemplifying how Supreme Court nominations can influence a president's legacy. The process has often become partisan, with nominees potentially shaping jurisprudence in unforeseen ways after confirmation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reaction to the Nomination of Judge Bork
The nomination of Judge Robert Bork by President Reagan faced considerable opposition due to his perceived conservative and 'extremist view of the Constitution.' This controversy highlighted how a president’s legacy can be affected by a Supreme Court nomination. The Senate's role in confirming nominees has sometimes led to intense political battles, reflecting the broader ideological divides in the government and society. Similar contentious nominations included those of Douglas Ginsburg, Harriet Miers, and more recently, Brett Kavanaugh. Each faced different forms of political resistance, with Kavanaugh's confirmation process particularly emblematic of growing partisanship. Throughout history, Supreme Court nominations have been crucial for presidents to shape their ideological legacies, with nominees such as Merrick Garland being blocked in politically charged environments, and those like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett confirmed under favorable Senate conditions.
Moreover, the presumed ideological leanings of nominees don't always play out as expected post-confirmation, as seen with Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Warren, who expanded civil and criminal rights contrary to Eisenhower’s anticipation. This complexity underscores the unpredictable nature of justices’ long-term impact and the political nuances involved in Supreme Court nominations.