Senate confirmation hearings on President Reagan's nominees for the U. S. Supreme Court raise questions about what these nominations tell about law. The controversy that surrounded the confirmation of the Reagan nominees was a direct result of two competing conceptions of law: legal formalism and legal realism. Legal formalism views law as a science based on "universal" legal principles, binding courts to precedent and the decisions of higher courts. Legal realism rejects formalism, seeing reliance on precedent as a static disguise for judicial discretion. Realists see the law more as a collection of argument warrants than scientific principles. To formalists, the selection of a justice should depend on that person's ability to apply the law, not any political ideology. To realists, it matters a great deal who is making the decisions, so extremist views justify rejection of a Supreme Court nominee. The disagreement explains the debate over the elevation of Associate Justice William Rehnquist to the position of Chief Justice, and the nominations of Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, and Anthony Kennedy to the Court. Legal realists involved in the Senate confirmation hearings on the nominations focused on the nominees' perceived conservatism, while conservative Senators sought to emphasize the nominees' qualifications. The controversy surrounding the nominations foreshadows legislative battles to come; future nominees will be measured in an ideological crucible. (SG)