Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-6pjjk Total loading time: 0.486 Render date: 2023-01-28T22:51:49.671Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Jessica A. Schoenherr*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Elizabeth A. Lane
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Miles T. Armaly
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi
*
Contact the corresponding author, Jessica A. Schoenherr, at js122@mailbox.sc.edu.

Abstract

US Supreme Court confirmation hearings provide senators with an opportunity to engage a potential justice on a nationwide stage. Senators probe for information about future behavior on the bench. Nominees work through the questions, oscillating between forthcoming and vague responses. Such behavior encourages popular narratives that characterize this intricate dance as a “vapid and hollow charade.” We challenge this wisdom and argue that senators use these hearings to provide meaningful representation to their constituents while simultaneously supporting copartisan efforts regarding the nominee. We examine the exchanges in 185 senator-nominee pairings that span nearly 30 years of confirmation hearings. Our results show that senators from both parties increase their question-asking activity during divided government, when confirmation success is more dubious. Senators from the president’s party ask fewer questions when their constituents support the nominee, however, suggesting that popular support can attenuate this general effect for senators expecting a successful confirmation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2020 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Originally prepared for the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 12–15, 2017. We thank Donald Campbell, Marcus Hendershot, Amy Steigerwalt, and Alicia Uribe-McGuire for their helpful comments. We also thank Dion Farganis, Ryan Owens, and Justin Wedeking for sharing their data on confirmation hearings, as well as Jonathan Kastellec, Jeffrey Lax, Michael Malecki, and Justin Phillips for making their public opinion data and code available via Harvard Dataverse. Finally, we thank Ryan Black, Marty Jordan, Ian Ostrander, and Corwin Smidt for their commentary on several iterations of this project and Emma Brooks, Leopold Ditz, and Lola Kurniawan for their support.

References

Andrews, James H. 1993. “Viewing Ginsburg from Death Row.” Christian Science Monitor, August 2. https://bit.ly/2T7F0uH.Google Scholar
Bell, Lauren Cohen. 2002. “Senatorial Discourtesy: The Senate’s Use of Delay to Shape the Federal Judiciary.Political Research Quarterly 55 (3): 589608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenson, Tessa. 2017. “How Neil Gorsuch’s Confirmation Fight Changed Politics.” Time, April 7. http://time.com/4730746/neil-gorsuch-confirmed-supreme-court-year/.Google Scholar
Bickers, Kenneth M., and Stein, Robert M. 1996. “The Electoral Dynamics of the Federal Pork Barrel.American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 13001326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Maltzman, Forrest. 2009. Advice and Dissent: The Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Madonna, Anthony J., and Owens, Ryan J. 2014. “Qualifications or Philosophy? The Use of Blue Slips in a Polarized Era.Presidential Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 290308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Treul, Sarah, Johnson, Timothy R., and Goldman, Jerry. 2011. “Emotions, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.Journal of Politics 73 (2): 572–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Jon R., Fleisher, Richard, and Krutz, Glen S. 2009. “Malign Neglect: Evidence That Delay Has Become the Primary Method of Defeating Presidential Appointments.Congress and the Presidency 36 (3): 226–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burr, Thomas. 2018. “Sen. Orrin Hatch’s Impact on the Supreme Court: How a One-Time Lawyer from Pittsburgh Shaped the Highest Court in the Land.” Salt Lake Tribune, July 29. https://bit.ly/2VbMAlG.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Hojnacki, Marie, and Wright, John R. 2000. “The Lobbying Activities of Organized Interests in Federal Judicial Nominations.Journal of Politics 62 (1): 5169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R. 1998. “Lobbying for Justice: Organized Interests, Supreme Court Nominations, and the United States Senate.American Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 499523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Jee-Kwang Park. 2013. “Voting for Justices: Change and Continuity in Confirmation Voting, 1937–2010.Journal of Politics 75 (2): 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., and Soberg Shugart, Matthew. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Order of Electoral Formulas.Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Rothenberg, Lawrence S. 2014. “Executive Appointments: Duration, Ideology, and Hierarchy.Journal of Theoretical Politics 26 (3): 496517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CNN. 2017. “Full Sen. Franken Questioning of Judge Gorsuch.” March 21. YouTube video, 29:24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7E3Bb98uKw.Google Scholar
Coaston, Jane. 2017. “It’s Kid Rock’s Party Now: The GOP Is about Annoying Liberals, Not Conservatism.” Buzzfeed News, July 25. https://www.buzzfeed.com/janecoaston/its-kid-rocks-party-now.Google Scholar
Cohen, Lauren M. 1998. “Missing in Action: Interest Groups and Federal Judicial Appointments.Judicature 82 (3): 119–23.Google Scholar
Cohrs, Rachel. 2018. “Cornyn and Cruz Berate Democrats, Go Easy on Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh.” Dallas Morning News, September 5. https://bit.ly/2BTJpaK.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M., and Ringhand, Lori A. 2013. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M., and Ringhand, Lori A. 2016. “The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.Law and Social Inquiry 41 (1): 126–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Competitive Enterprise Institute. 2005. “Senate Judiciary Hearings on Judge John Roberts: Chance for Grandstanding or Serious Debate?” Competitive Enterprise Institute. https://cei.org/content/senate-judiciary-hearings-judge-john-roberts-chance-grandstanding-or-serious-debate.Google Scholar
Cottrill, James B., and Peretti, Terri J. 2013. “The Partisan Dynamics of Supreme Court Confirmation Voting.Justice System Journal 34 (1): 1537.Google Scholar
Eilperin, Juliet. 2014. “Chances for Obama Nominees to Be Confirmed Are Falling, Even with over Two Years to Go.” Washington Post, March 26. https://wapo.st/2T0nFF7.Google Scholar
Elving, Ron. 2018. “What Happened with Merrick Garland in 2016 and Why It Matters Now.” NPR, June 29. https://n.pr/2MuJl4n.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Lindsadt, Rene, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2006. “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.Journal of Politics 68 (2): 296307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farganis, Dion, and Wedeking, Justin. 2011. “‘No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews’: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominee Candor from Harlan to Kagan.Law and Society Review 45 (3): 525–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farganis, Dion, and Wedeking, Justin. 2014. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the U.S. Senate: Reconsidering the Charade. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Flegenheimer, Matt. 2017. “The Roots of the Battle over Neil Gorsuch: They Started It.” New York Times, March 31. https://nyti.ms/2nCLhfX.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. 2009. “Confirmation Politics and the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination.American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin. 2013. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, and Stewart, Brandon M. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.Political Analysis 21 (3): 267–97.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. 2003. Federalist no. 76. In The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Heritage Foundation. 2017. “The Confirmation Process for Presidential Appointees.” Heritage Explains. https://herit.ag/2IqqAOO.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Hurley, Patricia A. 2002. “Symbolic Speeches in the U.S. Senate and Their Representational Implications.Journal of Politics 64 (1): 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Nicholas O., and Roberts, Jason M. 2015. “The Politics of Obstruction: Republican Holds in the U.S. Senate.Legislative Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 273–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulse, Carl. 2017. “Joviality at Neil Gorsuch’s Hearing Masks Drama behind the Scenes.” New York Times, March 22. https://nyti.ms/2mTkLha.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Carson, Jamie L. 2016. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 9th ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., and Roberts, Jason M. 2004. “Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process.Journal of Politics 66 (3): 663–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Elena. 1995. “Confirmation Messes, Old and New.University of Chicago Law Review 62:919–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David A. 2018. The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court’s Assault on the Constitution. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P., Lax, Jeffrey R., Malecki, Michael, and Phillips, Justin H. 2015. “Polarizing the Electoral Connection: Partisan Representation in Supreme Court Confirmation Politics.Journal of Politics 77 (3): 787804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan, Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H. 2010. “Public Opinion and Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees.Journal of Politics 71 (3): 767–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutz, Glen S., Fleisher, Richard, and Bond, Jon R. 1998. “From Abe Fortas to Zoe Baird: Why Some Presidential Nominations Fail in the Senate.American Political Science Review 92 (4): 871–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., Poole, Keith, Rosenthal, Howard, Boche, Adam, Rudkin, Aaron, and Sonnet, Luke. 2019. Voteview: Congressional Roll Call Votes Database. https://voteview.com/.Google Scholar
Lithwick, Dahlia. 2017. “Were the Gorsuch Hearings as Pointless as They Seemed?” Slate Plus, March 28. http://slate.me/2i0Rgct.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Maas, Cora J. M., and Hox, Joop J. 2005. “Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling.Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 1 (3): 8692.Google Scholar
Madonna, Anthony J. 2011. “Winning Coalition Formation in the US Senate: The Effects of Legislative Decision Rules and Agenda Change.American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 276–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madonna, Anthony J., Monogan, James E., and Vining, Richard L. 2016. “Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage: The Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate.Political Research Quarterly 69 (4): 746–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2014. “What We Know and Don’t Know about Our Polarized Politics.” Washington Post, January 8. https://wapo.st/2GIkR94.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McMillion, Barry J., and Steven Rutkus, Denis. 2018. “Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President.” Congressional Research Service. https://bit.ly/2XbnxAZ.Google Scholar
Miller, Mark C. 1995. The High Priests of American Politics: The Role of Lawyers in American Political Institutions. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael P., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2008. “Fightin’ Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict.Political Analysis 16 (4): 372403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moraski, Bryon J., and Shipan, Charles R. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.American Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 1069–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemacheck, Christine L. 2008. Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Ostrander, Ian. 2016. “The Logic of Collective Inaction: Senatorial Delay in Executive Nominations.American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 1063–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overby, L. Marvin, Henschen, Beth M., Strauss, Julie, and Walsh, Michael H. 1994. “African-American Constituents and Supreme Court Nominees: An Examination of the Senate Confirmation of Thurgood Marshall.Political Research Quarterly 47 (4): 839–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., and Wedeking, Justin. 2012. “Some (Potential) Applications of Computer Content Analysis to the Study of Law and Courts.Law and Courts: Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association 22 (1): 2632.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith. 2012. “Graphic Picture of a Polarized Congress.UGA Research 42 (1): 3233.Google Scholar
Scherer, Nancy, Bartels, Brandon L., and Steigerwalt, Amy. 2008. “Sounding the Fire Alarm: The Role of Interest Groups in the Lower Federal Court Confirmation Process.Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1026–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidman, Andrew, and Tamari, Jonathan. 2018. “‘So Much Is at Stake’: Why Cory Booker Has Shed His Nice Guy Image in Brett Kavanaugh Hearings.” Philadelphia Inquirer, September 5. https://bit.ly/2Vg6rA6.Google Scholar
Shugerman, Jed Handelsman. 2017. “Neil Gorsuch and the Frozen Trucker.” Slate, March 21. http://slate.me/2niHUwG.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2015. The Media, the Court, and the Misrepresentation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Specter, Arlen, and Robbins, Charles. 2002. Passion for Truth: From Finding JFK’s Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Specter, Arlen, and Robbins, Charles. 2012. Life among the Cannibals: A Political Career, a Tea Party Uprising, and the End of Governing as We Know It. New York: Dunne.Google Scholar
Steigerwalt, Amy. 2010. Battle over the Bench: Senators, Interest Groups, and Lower Court Confirmations. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Toobin, Jeffrey. 2008. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Ura, Joseph Daniel, and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2010. “‘An Appeal to the People’: Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court.Journal of Politics 72 (4): 939–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Senate. 2016. “Nomination Hearings for Supreme Court Justices.” https://www.senate.gov/committees/SupremeCourtNominationHearings.htm.Google Scholar
Williams, Joseph P. 2018. “A Judicial Wrecking Ball.” U.S. News and World Report, October 5. https://bit.ly/2IDA9d7.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 9811000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Li. 2018. “Kamala Harris Asked Brett Kavanaugh If Men Could Be Friends with Some Women—While Hurting Others.” Vox, September 27. https://bit.ly/2StbsDz.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schoenherr et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 288 KB
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *