Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change

Abstract

Before Supreme Court nominees are allowed to take their place on the High Court, they must face a moment of democratic reckoning by appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite the potential this holds for public input into the direction of legal change, the hearings are routinely derided as nothing but empty rituals and political grandstanding. In this book, Paul M. Collins and Lori A. Ringhand present a contrarian view that uses both empirical data and stories culled from more than seventy years of transcripts to demonstrate that the hearings are a democratic forum for the discussion and ratification of constitutional change. As such, they are one of the ways in which 'We the People' take ownership of the Constitution by examining the core constitutional values of those permitted to interpret it on our behalf.

The Role of Nominee Gender and Race at U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

“…In starkly racialized language, he referred to his experience before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a “high‐tech lynching for uppity blacks” (United States Senate : 157). Commentators have made similar observations over the years (Collins Jr. and Ringhand : 169–170; Kenney : 230).…”

“…At the heart of the confirmation hearings rests the question‐and‐answer sessions during which each Committee member questions the nominee for a set time on the topics of his or her choosing. Although some scholarly accounts of the hearings, based largely on anecdotes, question their value (e.g., Carter ), more rigorous evidence demonstrates that the hearings do play an important role in the Supreme Court selection process and the answers nominees give (or do not give) can have vast implications for nominees (Collins Jr. and Ringhand ; Farganis and Wedeking ).…”

“…Selection as a modern U.S. Supreme Court justice requires navigating the Supreme Court confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The questions asked and answers given (or not given) at the hearings can affect the fate of the nominee in the full Senate (Collins Jr. and Ringhand ; Farganis and Wedeking ), shape the ideological orientation of the Supreme Court (Epstein and Segal ), and contribute to our understanding of what is and is not “settled” as a matter of contemporary constitutional law (Collins Jr. and Ringhand ).…”

“…The confirmation hearings provide a unique and very public view into this otherwise illusive entity. Indeed, these hearings are a national event, attracting substantial media attention, reporting, and gavel‐to‐gavel television coverage (Bybee ; Collins Jr. and Ringhand ; Farganis and Wedeking ; Vining Jr. ). As such, they provide a salient and unique opportunity for Americans to directly observe nominees and, in many cases, develop opinions about the nominees and the Court (Gimpel and Wolpert ).…”

Reconsidering Positivity Theory: What Roles do Politicization, Ideological Disagreement, and Legal Realism Play in Shaping U.S. Supreme Court Legitimacy?

“… Collins and Ringhand () present a different view, suggesting that the hearings themselves present a unique opportunity to discuss and ratify constitutional change.…”