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

Abstract

We investigate an unexplored aspect of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process: whether questioning senators treat female and minority nominees differently from male and white nominees. Applying out‐group theory, we argue that senators will ask female and minority nominees more questions about their “judicial philosophies” in an effort to determine their competence to serve on the Court. This out‐group bias is likely to be exacerbated for nominees not sharing the senator's political party. Our results do not support racial differences, but they do provide strong evidence that female nominees receive more judicial philosophy‐related questions from male senators. This effect is enhanced when the female nominee does not share the partisan affiliation of the questioning senator. Together, these findings indicate that female nominees undergo a substantively different confirmation process than male nominees. We further find that this effect may be most intense with nominees like Justice Sotomayor, whose identities align with more than one out‐group.

Change and Continuity in Citizens’ Evaluations of Supreme Court Nominees

“…Examples of statements included in the competence orientation include “he’s well prepared,” “he has experience,” and “he’s qualified.” We also included in this category any references to modes of legal interpretation such as originalism, strict constructionism, or textualism. This is consistent with the view advanced by Boyd et al (2018) that an evaluator’s perception of a nominee’s judicial philosophy is associated closely with her view of the nominee’s qualifications.…”

Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court

“…Margins of victory were once large and bipartisan, but now fall along party lines. The way senators interact with nominees is now predicated on partisanship (Boyd et al, 2018; Schoenherr et al, 2020). There is some evidence that recent nomination battles have weakened and polarized mass support for the judiciary (Carrington & French, Forthcoming; Krewson & Schroedel, 2020).…”

Corporate lawyers in the USA: pathway to gender parity?

“…A significant body of research finds that cultural stereotypes serve to undermine perceptions of women's competence and capability as leaders (Eagly and Karau, 2002;Fiske, 1993;Koenig et al, 2011;Powell, 2012;Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). Biases regarding women's competence have been demonstrated across the legal career, extending even to judicial performance evaluations (Boyd et al, 2018). Such stereotypes can contribute to compensation differences, particularly where compensation is based on subjective assessments of merit, capability and leadership potential (Madden, 2012).…”