From Abe Fortas to Zoë Baird: Why Some Presidential Nominations Fail in the Senate

Abstract

W"Jf 7"hy, given a strong presumption of success, do some presidential nominations fail? Of 1,464 \/%/ important nominations from 1965 to 1994, less than 5% failed. Ninety-four percent of failures f f were rejected or withdrawn before reaching the floor, suggesting that opponents are most effective during prefloor stages. We propose a theoretical framework based on the notion that policy entrepreneurs pursue their goals within the context of a presumption of success. Logit analysis tends to support the theory that entrepreneurs can alter the presumption of success and defeat a nomination if they (1) identify negative information about a nominee to provide a rationale for changing the presumption and (2) expand the conflict through committee hearings and the media. Presidential resources-high public approval and efforts to signal that the nomination is a high priority-increase the chances of confirmation. Contrary to previous research, divided government has no independent effect on the fate of nominations.

Hitching a ride: omnibus legislating in the U.S. Congress

“…Second, this chapter joins other studies that demonstrate the impor tance of studying lawmaking in Congress in stages before the floor (e.g., Hall and Wayman 1990;Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond 1998;Taylor 1998). Omnibus legislating in effect inserts an important decision about policy outcomes (what will be incorporated into a must-pass bill) into the prefloor legislative process.…”

“…This alternate route gets the president around having his bills go it alone in the legislative process and perhaps get blocked. The president, like members of Congress, faces a presumption of failure for bills introduced in Congress (Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond 1998). While the president is more likely to succeed in the legislative process than a typical member of Congress, only one-fourth of presidential proposals are enacted into law in a form still recognizable to the president (Peterson 1990).…”

“…It appears that omnibus bills provide a viable and important alternative route to enact ment for bills introduced in Congress. This finding is important because entrepreneurs pushing the other 84 percent of bills have to overcome a pre sumption of failure for bills introduced (Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond 1998). The vast majority of these bills will not survive the legislative gauntlet; only 28 percent become law.…”

Appointment Delay and the Policy Environment of the National Transportation Safety Board

“…Presidents wish to appoint commissioners who reflect their own ideology. But for the few nominations that do fail, extreme ideology has been cited as a primary reason (Cameron, Cover, & Segal, 1990;Krutz, Fleisher, & Bond, 1998). This occurs even though the White House generally will not name a nominee unless he or she has passed the scrutiny of relevant industries or interests (Kohlmeier, 1969).…”

Roll Call Votes on Cabinet Confirmations

“…While most legislative decisions hinge on political factors, a nomination's fate also turns on the personal characteristics of the nominee. Or, more specifically, on how opponents of the nomination can characterize the nominee (King and Riddlesperger 1996;Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond 1998;Mackenzie 1981). After a review of the literature on Senate consideration of presidential nominations, we define and test a model of cabinet confirmation voting that includes both political and personal factors believed to affect senators' decisions.…”