Judging the “Vapid and Hollow Charade”: Citizen Evaluations and the Candor of U.S. Supreme Court Nominees

Chen, Philip G.; Bryan, Amanda C.

doi:10.1007/s11109-017-9411-y

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether this apparent commitment to ideology is driven by actual issue stances or more symbolic, identity-driven concerns (Mason, 2018) is something that future work should explore. Recent evidence (Chen and Bryan, 2018) is more consistent with the former, but more precise testing is needed.…”

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Badas

Simas

2021

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Badas

Simas

2021

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several recent studies evaluate related aspects, however. For instance, Chen and Bryan (2018) study how nominees’ refusal to answer questions about their political views affects their public support, while Armaly (2018b) studies how perceptions of the Court's legitimacy were affected by messages about the political importance of filling the Supreme Court seat made vacant upon Scalia's death in 2016. In the study most related to our own, Armaly (2018a) shows that messages from political actors outside the Court can affect the public's impressions of it.…”

Section: Political Contestation and Public Opinion Toward The Judiciarymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rogowski

Stone

2019

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…This study also contributes to the broader literature focused on the politics of appointments and confirmations (e.g. Caldeira 2009;Gibson and Sen 2017;Chen and Bryan 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changed Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death

Glick

2023

J. law courts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death near the end of the Trump presidency set off a fight in which Republicans moved to rapidly replace her over Democrats’ objections. I use a survey that was in the field at the time to assess whether this period affected the Court’s legitimacy. I find that Democrats who responded in the days just after Justice Ginsburg’s death saw the Court as less legitimate than those who responded shortly before it. These findings connect to broader questions about the sources of Court legitimacy, the mechanisms through which it changes, and the impact of contestation over appointments.

show abstract

Judging the “Vapid and Hollow Charade”: Citizen Evaluations and the Candor of U.S. Supreme Court Nominees

Cited by 9 publications

References 52 publications

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

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

Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changed Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About