Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T00:51:59.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relevance of Policy Values for the Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Donald R. Songer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The confirmation votes on the fourteen most controversial Supreme Court nominees of the twentieth century were analyzed. The data supported the conclusion that Senate opposition to Supreme Court nominees is due primarily to a predicted dissatisfaction with the policy-relevant voting of the nominee after confirmation. The policy position of senators supporting confirmation was found to be significantly different from the policy position of senators opposing confirmation even after controls were introduced for the political party and ethical standards position of senators.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , Summer 1979 , pp. 927 - 948
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Law and Society Association.

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

*

For his criticism and encouragements, and for knowing when to do which, I wish to thank Professor Richard J. Richardson of the University of North Carolina.

References

ABRAHAM, Henry J. and Edward M., GOLDBERG (1960) “A Note on the Appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States” 46 American Bar Association Journal 147.Google Scholar
CLAUSEN, Aage R. (1973) How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
GROSSMAN, Joel B. (1965) Lawyers and Judges'. The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
GROSSMAN, Joel B. and Stephen, WASBY (1971) “Haynsworth and Parker: History Does Live Again,” 23 South Carolina Law Review 345.Google Scholar
GROSSMAN, Joel B. (1972) “The Senate and Supreme Court Nominations: Some Reflections,” 1972 Duke Law Journal 557.Google Scholar
HALPER, Thomas (1973) “Senate Rejection of Supreme Court Nominees,” 22 Drake Law Review 102.Google Scholar
HARRIS, Joseph P. (1953) The Advice and Consent of the Senate. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HINCKLEY, Barbara (1971) Stability and Change in Congress. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
KRITZER, Herbert M. (1978) “An Introduction to Multivariate Contingency Table Analysis,” 22 American Journal of Political Science 187.Google Scholar
MCCONNELL, A. Mitchell (1970) “Haynsworth and Carswell: A New Senate Standard of Excellence,” 59 Kentucky Law Journal 7.Google Scholar
PELTASON, Jack W. (1955) Federal Courts in the Political Process. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
ROHDE, David and Harold J., SPAETH (1976) Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, Glendon (1965) The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946-1963. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
SCIGLIANO, Robert (1971) The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
STONE, Clarence N. (1965) “Issue Cleavage Between Democrats and Republicans in the United States House of Representatives,” 14 Journal of Public Law 343.Google Scholar
SWINDLER, William (1970) “The Politics of Advice and Consent,” 56 American Bar Association Journal 533.Google Scholar