No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Analyzing the Rhetoric of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2023
Abstract
Supreme Court confirmation hearings place the often-reclusive institution in the public spotlight and afford members of the Senate Judiciary Committee the ability to pursue important personal and party goals. I construct and evaluate a measure of rhetorical sentiment that considers the positive and negative behaviors of committee members during Supreme Court confirmation hearings between 1971 and 2020. While some observers have pointed to the evolving dynamics of confirmation hearings as being the result of key inflection points, I find that these events alone do not explain rhetorical behaviors. Instead, my results suggest that rhetorical behaviors have been predominately mediated by structures of party control and the balance of interbranch political power since at least the 1970s. I conclude by noting how these behaviors can further deteriorate the public’s perceptions that the Court remains insulated from the contentious political environment.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association
References
Arnholz, Jack. 2020. “When Kamala Harris Took on Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Barr.” https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kamala-harris-brett-kavanaugh/story?id=72331829.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A., and Gangl, Amy. 2006. “Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness.” Political Psychology 27(4): 597–614.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00518.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Barrett Confirmation Hearing.” C-SPAN video. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476315-1/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-1-part-1.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): 290–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, R. H. 1990. “The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law.” BYU Law Review 1990(2): 665–672.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Collins, Paul M. Jr and Ringhand, Lori A.. 2018. “The role of nominee gender and race at US Supreme court confirmation hearings.” Law & Society Review 52(4): 871–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Park, Jee-Kwang. 2013. “Voting for justices: Change and continuity in confirmation voting 1937–2010.” The Journal of Politics 75(2): 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, G. A. 1988. “Commentary on senate confirmation of supreme court justices: The roles of organized and unorganized interests.” Kentucky Law Journal 77(3): 531–538.Google Scholar
Carrington, Nathan T., and French, Colin. 2021. “One bad apple spoils the bunch: Kavanaugh and change in institutional support for the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly 102(4): 1484–1495.10.1111/ssqu.12983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S., Staton, Jeffrey K., Wang, Yu, and Agichtein, Eugene. 2018. “Using Twitter to study public discourse in the wake of judicial decisions: Public reactions to the supreme court’s same-sex-marriage cases.” Journal of Law and Courts 6(1): 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M., and Ringhand, Lori A.. 2013. Supreme Court confirmation hearings and constitutional change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M., and Ringhand, Lori A.. 2016. “The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.” Law & Social Inquiry 41(1): 126–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denning, Brannon P. 2001. “The Judicial Confirmation Process and the Blue Slip.” Judicature 85(5): 218–226.Google Scholar
Elving, R. 2018. “What happened with Merrick Garland in 2016 and why it matters now.” https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Lindstädt, René, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2006 “The changing dynamics of Senate voting on Supreme Court nominees.” The Journal of Politics 68(2): 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2007. “The increasing importance of ideology in the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices.” Drake Law Review 56(3): 609–636.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2007. “The judicial common space.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23(2): 303–325.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 & Society Review 45(3): 525–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, Inc. 2021. “Presidential Job Approval Center.” https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2009. “Confirmation politics and the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Institutional loyalty, positivity bias, and the Alito nomination.” American Journal of Political Science 53(1):139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Roberts, Margaret E., and Stewart, Brandon M.. 2022. Text as Data: A New Framework for Machine Learning and the Social Sciences. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guliuzza, Frank III, Reagan, Daniel J., and Barrett, David M.. 1994. “The senate judiciary committee and supreme court nominees: Measuring the dynamics of confirmation criteria.” The Journal of Politics 56(3): 773–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Minqing, and Liu, Bing. 2004. “Mining and summarizing customer reviews.” In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 168–177.Google Scholar
Jaros, Dean, and Roper, Robert. 1980. “The US Supreme Court: Myth, diffuse support, specific support, and legitimacy.” American Politics Quarterly 8(1): 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewson, Christopher N., and Schroedel, Jean R.. 2020. “Public views of the US supreme court in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation.” Social Science Quarterly 101(4): 1430–1441.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): 871–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., Poole, Keith, Rosenthal, Howard, Boche, Adam, Rudkin, Aaron, and Sonnet, Luke. 2022. Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database. https://voteview.com/.Google Scholar
Martinek, Wendy L., Kemper, Mark, and Van Winkle, Steven R.. 2002. “To advise and consent: The Senate and lower federal court nominations, 1977–1998.” The Journal of Politics 64(2): 337–361.CrossRefGoogle 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
Moraski, Bryon J., and Shipan, Charles R.. 1999. “The politics of Supreme Court nominations: A theory of international constraints and choices.” American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 1069–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nemacheck, Christine L. 2008. Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Ogundele, Ayo, and Keith, Linda Camp. 1999. “Reexamining the impact of the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 52(2): 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “D-nominate after 10 years: A comparative update to congress: A political-economic history of roll-call voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringhand, Lori A., and Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2010. “May it please the senate: An empirical analysis of the senate judiciary committee hearings of Supreme Court nominees, 1939–2009.” American University Law Review. 60(3): 589–642.Google Scholar
Schoenherr, Jessica A., Lane, Elizabeth A., and Armaly, Miles T.. 2020. “The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.” Journal of Law and Courts 8(2): 333–358.10.1086/709913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Mark. (1994). Judicious Choices: The New Politics of Supreme Court Confirmations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Totenberg, Nina. 2011. “Thomas confirmation hearings had ripple effect.” https://www.npr.org/2011/10/11/141213260/thomas-confirmation-hearings-had-ripple-effectGoogle Scholar
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2Google Scholar
Vining, Richard L Jr. 2011. “Grassroots mobilization in the digital age: Interest group response to supreme court nominees.” Political Research Quarterly 64(4): 790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vining, Richard L. Jr & Marcin, Phil. 2014. “An economic theory of Supreme Court news.” Political Communication 31(1): 94–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, George, and Stookey, John. 1987 “Supreme Court confirmation hearings: A view from the Senate.” Judicature 71(4): 186–196.Google Scholar
Weissman, Shoshana, and Marcum, Anthony. 2019. “Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Transcripts, As Data.” https://www.rstreet.org/research/supreme-court-confirmation-hearing-transcripts-as-data/Google Scholar
Wheeler, Lydia. 2018. “The lasting effect of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.” https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/410214-the-lasting-effect-of-kavanaughs-confirmation-hearings/.Google Scholar
Truscott supplementary material
Truscott supplementary material
File
898.3 KB