No abstract

Extant research on public support for judicial nominees finds that ideological congruence with the nominee is the most important factor in an individual’s decision to support a nominee. The research presented in this article develops the theory that for individuals from underrepresented groups, a shared descriptive identity with the nominee will moderate the negative effect of ideological distance. We test our theory using the nominations of Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Furthermore, we conduct placebo tests to determine whether the effect of ideology is moderated for underrepresented groups when a shared descriptive identity is not present. We find that in the context of the Thomas nomination, a shared racial identity led to increased support for Thomas among liberal African Americans. We find similar effects in the case of Kagan and conservative women. In the case of Sotomayor, we find that a shared ethnic identity led to increased support among conservative Latinos, regardless of gender. We conclude by discussing the implications our findings have for descriptive representation and presidential selection of judicial nominees.

Objectives This article advances criticisms of the traditional legitimacy index as it relates to determining whether ideological distance predicts an individual's willing to sanction the Court. As a solution to these criticisms, this article develops a new measure of judicial legitimacy, the applied legitimacy index. Methods Using data from the American Panel Survey and item response theory models, this article estimates the applied legitimacy index. Ordinary least squares regression models then compare the effect ideological distance has on both the traditional legitimacy index and the newly developed applied legitimacy index. Results The results indicate that those who are ideologically distant from the Court have diminished views of the Court's applied legitimacy. The substantive effect of ideological distance is much larger for applied legitimacy than when compared with traditional legitimacy. Conclusions This article suggests that the traditional legitimacy index may overestimate loyalty to the Court and underestimate the extent to which individuals are willing to sanction an ideologically distant Court. Based on this, the article advocates that scholars adopt the applied legitimacy index in future studies.

No abstract

Judicial nominations, particularly those to the Supreme Court, have been a salient topic in recent presidential and senate elections. However, there has been little research to determine whether judicial nominations motivate political behavior. Across three studies we demonstrate the important role judicial nominations play in influencing political behavior. In Study 1, we analyze the extent to which voters perceive judicial nominations as an important electoral issue. We find that Republicans—and especially strong Republicans—are more likely to perceive judicial nominations as important. In Study 2, we analyze how congruence with an incumbent Senator's judicial confirmation votes influences voters’ decision to vote for the incumbent. We find that congruence with a Senator's judicial confirmation votes is a strong predictor of vote choice. Finally, in Study 3, we analyze data from an original conjoint experiment aimed at simulating a Senate primary election where voters must select among co-partisans. We find that Republican subjects are more likely to select a primary candidate who prioritizes confirming conservative Supreme Court nominees. Among Democratic subjects, however, we find that Democratic candidates who prioritize the Court might actually suffer negative electoral consequences. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of judicial nominations as an electoral issue.