The Changing Politics of Federal Judicial Nominations (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Changing Politics of Supreme Court Confirmations
American Politics Research, 2012
Senate voting on Supreme Court nominees offers a window into macropolitical continuity and change. Clashes over confirmations once were reserved for a handful of exceptional cases, but recently have become the norm. Party cohesion in the Senate has also experienced a recent, rapid increase. An analysis of votes on 43 Supreme Court nominees reveals that senators polarize in response to rising levels of average party loyalty. The analysis further reveals that a senator who individually is more loyal to his or her party will be more likely to adopt an extreme position on confirmation, even after controlling for the effects of rising aggregate partisanship. Once the partisan trend is taken into account, our analysis contradicts the conventional wisdom that Robert Bork's nomination instituted a "regime change" with a lasting effect on Senate voting patterns.
Judicial Selection: Politics, Biases, and Constituency Demands
Public Choice, 2004
The determinants of recent U.S. district court judges and appellate court judges selection have been subject of much debate, but little systematic evidence has been presented to substantiate claims regarding discrimination against particular groups of judicial nominees, nor regarding the length of the appointment process. We study both the length of the nominations process, and the likelihood of confirmation and emphasize the role of Senatorial seniority and agenda control in the confirmations process. We find that Senators with agenda control have a positive effect on the speed and likelihood of confirmation and that nominees from states with comparatively senior Senators receive expedited treatment relative to other nominees. Although politics matter in the confirmation process, Senators are responsive to perceived "shortage" of judges, since they fill seats faster when a relatively large number of court seats are vacant. Nominees with higher personal qualifications are also more likely to experience success in confirmations. We found no evidence of gender or race discrimination on the part of the Senate.
Voting for Justices: Change and Continuity in Confirmation Voting 1937–2010
The Journal of Politics, 2013
The contentiousness of Senate voting on Supreme Court nominations increased dramatically from 1937 to 2010. We identify four potential sources of the increase: (1) changes in the Senate; (2) changes in the nominees; (3) changes in the political environment; and, (4) changes in senators' evaluative criteria. Using new data and improved statistical techniques, we estimate a well-performing model of senators' individual voting choices on Supreme Court nominees. Simulations allow an evaluation of the contribution of the four classes of factors to increased contentiousness. The principal source of increased contentiousness was the combination of increasingly extreme nominees and an increasingly polarized Senate. Also significant was the increased mobilization of interest groups. In sum, increased contentiousness seems largely to reflect the ideological polarization of American political elites.
The Increasing Senate Scrutiny of Lower Federal Court Nominees
Political Science Quarterly, 2002
We argue that scrutiny of lower federal court nominations in the Senate is not unique to the Clinton administration during the tenure of Orrin Hatch as Judiciary Committee chair. Instead, increased scrutiny of lower court nominees has been a long time in the making. Lower court nominations became more contentious during the Carter administration, increased further late in Reagan's second term, and reached a zenith after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
Politicizing Impartiality: Redefining the Role of the Senate in Federal Judicial Selection
Lincoln Memorial University Law Review, 2021
The judicial selection process is heavily backlogged, resulting in excessive vacant judgeships, many in geographical areas with extremely high caseloads. Thus, the federal courts are falling further behind every year in settling disputes. The Senate’s action with President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has only escalated the dysfunction of the judicial selection process. Coupled with the fallout surrounding the death of Justice Ginsburg and Senator McConnell’s complete refusal to honor the precedent set by him in 2016, it has become glaringly apparent that the confirmation process conducted by the Senate needs to be standardized and streamlined. In this article, we perform a Constitutional analysis of the actual textual role of the Senate in the Confirmation process and apply the historical interpretations of the Senate’s role by the drafters of the Constitution, explaining how the judicial selection process can be updated and standardized regarding both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts without requiring a Constitutional amendment to expedite the selection and approval of nominees and improve the efficiency of the process.
2015
Recent years have seen concerns about political polarization in America come to the fore – one only has to look at the recent fight between Congressional Republicans over the next Speaker of the House or Representatives to witness its effects. But what of judicial polarization? In new research which examines polarization in the US Supreme Court since 1938, Donald Gooch finds that this polarization has also increased, and correlates with congressional and presidential polarization. He argues that this trend is fed by shifts in ideological polarization in the Senate, and in public opinion. If it continues, he writes, polarization may lead to more frequent and powerful attacks on the Supreme Court’s authority and supremacy.
Law & Social Inquiry, 2021
Nominations to the US Supreme Court have become increasingly important and contentious in America politics in recent decades. Reasons include the growing significance of constitutional law to the prospects of political power, accompanied by historical developments in the relative power of the competing party coalitions that have placed even more focus on the composition of the Court. Meanwhile, partisan conflict and stalemate have grown in the party systems and among We the People. In The Long Reach of the Sixties, Laura Kalman explores how the nomination struggles of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon set the stage for the contemporary conflict besetting nominations and American politics more generally. Building on Kalman’s book, this review essay discusses the political and jurisprudential causes and implications of this conflict, with an eye toward what might lie ahead.
PS: Political Science & Politics, 2014
Unlike the massive literature about US Supreme Court confirmation battles, little has been written about lower federal court confirmation fights. However, in the past 20 years much has been written about the lower federal court confirmation process. Here, we take stock of the political science literature in this area and highlight where scholarly interest appears to be going. Believing a contemporary assessment of the state of the field should be of interest and use to scholars of American politics, we dissect the recent empirical literature and offer suggestions for future research. Most importantly, we offer a one stop shop for recent literature for scholars interested in this topic.
The effect of judicial selection processes on judicial quality: the role of partisan politics
2007
The quality of a state's judicial system is an important determinant of economic growth and vitality. The decisions made within state judicial systems affect the degree to which private property rights are well-defined and enforced, which is an essential building block for entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. The key link between free-market institutions, such as secure property rights, and entrepreneurial activity has been demonstrated by Kreft and Sobel (2005) and Ovaska and Sobel (2005). Bad court decisions often infringe on the individual liberties and freedoms that are essential underpinnings for civil society and a well-functioning market economy (see Dorn 1985 and others in that special issue of the Cato Journal on this general topic). In addition, decisions made within state judicial systems also have important effects on the cost of doing business in a state. Poor liability rules reflected in state judicial decisions have been blamed for high medical malpractice rates, high workers' compensation rates, and high automobile insurance rates in many states. Judicial decisions also impact the costliness of mandates and other regulations faced by businesses. Thus, it is clear that the judicial system is important for economic activity, and thus so is the selection mechanism that is used to determine the membership of state courts. States use different methods for the selection of judges. In 29 states, the governor or legislature appoints judges, while in 21 states popular elections are used to select judges. 1 Among those states that
The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Law & Social Inquiry, 2015
This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee's role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee's role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors.