How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

Abstract

Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support this argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans’ views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans (Democrats) expressing significantly more (less) favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era.

One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court

“…Finally, our findings join the growing chorus of evidence that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is not as stable as the conventional wisdom might suggest. While previous studies demonstrate the effects of ideological distance (Bartels and Johnson, 2013), confirmation hearings (Rogowski and Stone, 2019;Armaly, 2018b), and the decisions of the Court itself (Christenson and Glick, 2015;Zilis, 2018) on support for the institution, our findings join recent work highlighting the importance of confirmation hearings and the justices themselves on institutional support.…”

Critical coverage: How the media criticize supreme courts—Evidence from Israel

“…Research has shown that much of the criticism directed at the US Supreme Court has often been realized within a political frame, involving claims that the justices make decisions on ideological grounds and that the Court has usurped powers that belong to other branches of government (e.g., Bybee, 2010). Moreover, framing the US Supreme Court as a political rather than a legal institution has been associated with a decline in the perceived legitimacy of the Court (e.g., Andersen‐Jones, 2014; Hitt & Searles, 2018; LaRowe & Hoekstra, 2014; Rogowski & Stone, 2019). 24…”

“…Thus, political framing is found in recurring references to the personal ideologies of candidates to the US Supreme Court (Sen, 2017), in reports about the activism of the Court in reviewing legislation, and in descriptions of behind the scenes bargaining among the justices and vis‐à‐vis other political actors (Hitt & Searles, 2018; Solberg & Waltenburg, 2014). This political framing has been associated with a decline in public support for the Court (e.g., Andersen‐Jones, 2014; Hitt & Searles, 2018; LaRowe & Hoekstra, 2014; Rogowski & Stone, 2019).…”

“…24 24 Rogowski and Stone (2019) suggested that criticism that refers to the justices' ideology does not result in more polarized reactions to nominees than criticism that focuses on their professionalism. What was important in their study was the identity of the political actor who expressed criticism.…”

Descriptive representation and public support for Supreme Court nominees

“…According to Bartels and Johnston (2012), the American public perceives the judiciary in explicitly political terms and desires that Supreme Court justices are chosen on the basis of their political beliefs. Consistent with this perspective, Sen (2017) demonstrates that political views are the most important factor in how the public evaluates judicial nominees (see also Rogowski and Stone, Forthcoming). Given the salience of political considerations for attitudes toward judges and justices, descriptive characteristics may be especially important in the context of nominations because nominations exemplify low-information environments.…”