Abstract
This Article presents a comparative study of the appointment process to the Supreme Court in the United States and Argentina. The study reviews the Executive Branch's role, focusing on the selection criteria of potential candidates, such as age, professional expertise, and gender. As far as institutional design is concerned, the Article compares the procedures that can guarantee external evaluation and enhance the participation of interest groups and society at large, prior to formal nominations. A particular focus is laid upon recess appointments, to evaluate the extent to which this interim procedure conforms to current demands for improving the democratic legitimacy of the JudicialBranch. Furthermore, this Article explores and discusses the Senate's role, comparing procedural rules and recent institutional practices in both countries. Finally, using insights drawn from Game Theory, this study provides a model to better understand political dynamics and recently failed nominations.