The Senate Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court Nominees: Measuring the Dynamics of Confirmation Criteria

Guliuzza, Frank; Reagan, Daniel J.; Barrett, David M.

doi:10.2307/2132192

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Those studies revealed that the Judiciary Committee's attention to judicial philosophy was not unique to the Bork hearings which, like the proceedings for Clarence Thomas, were highly controversial. Indeed, the studies show that the issue of judicial philosophy occupied senators' attention at several other hearings, including controversial and noncontroversial proceedings (Ackerman 1988;Bennett 1990;Felice and Weisberg 1988;Grossman 1990;Guliuzza, Reagan, and Barrett 1994;Monaghan 1988;Myers 1990;O'Brien 1990;Zobel 1991). The committee's consistent emphasis on judicial philosophy suggests that senators view their participation in the confirmation process not only as a means of shaping constitutional dialogue, but of influencing constitutional interpretation as well (Wermiel 1993).…”

Section: Opening Statements At Confirmation Hearings 91mentioning

confidence: 99%

To Whom It May Concern: Senators‘ Opening Statements at Supreme Court Confirmaton Hearings

Maschke¹,

Siggelakis

1996

Southeastern Political Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the opening statements made by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Its aim is to identify the audiences senators target in their opening statements and to examine the messages they send to these audiences. The article shifts the focus away from the outcome of Supreme Court nominations to the “nomination discourse” of confirmation proceedings. Although senators use their opening statements to send a variety of messages to multiple audiences, they tend to emphasize the themes of judicial philosophy, the questioning of nominees, and the Senate's role in the confirmation process.

show abstract

Section: Opening Statements At Confirmation Hearings 91mentioning

confidence: 99%

To Whom It May Concern: Senators‘ Opening Statements at Supreme Court Confirmaton Hearings

Maschke¹,

Siggelakis

1996

Southeastern Political Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Guliuzza et al. ; Ringhand ; Watson & Stookey ; Williams & Baum ). Thus, although it is possible that the Bork proceedings were a turning point, and that things have gone rapidly downhill since that time, we simply do not yet know whether this is a fair assessment of the hearings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regrettably, answers to these questions have been elusive. While existing studies of the hearings have shed some light on changes in nominee testimony, these efforts have generally been limited to a small number of justices or to narrow bands of questions (see, e.g., Comiskey 2004;Czarnezki et al 2006;Guliuzza et al 1994;Ringhand 2008; Watson & Stookey 1988;Williams & Baum 2006). Thus, although it is possible that the Bork proceedings were a turning point, and that things have gone rapidly downhill since that time, we simply do not yet know whether this is a fair assessment of the hearings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews”: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominee Candor from Harlan to Kagan

Farganis

Wedeking

2011

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criticism of Supreme Court confirmation hearings has intensified considerably over the past two decades. In particular, there is a growing sense that nominees are now less forthcoming and that the hearings have suffered as a result. In this article, we challenge that conventional wisdom. Based on a comprehensive content analysis of every question and answer in all of the modern confirmation hearings—nearly 11,000 in total—we find only a mild decline in the candor of recent nominees. Moreover, we find that senators ask more probing questions than in the past, and that nominees are now more explicit about their reasons when they choose not to respond—two factors that may be fueling the perception that evasiveness has increased in recent years. We close with a discussion of the normative implications of our findings as well as an outline for future research into this issue.

show abstract

“…In addition, much of the nominations literature focuses on stages of the selection process wherein presidents exert greater control. For instance, several studies concentrate on the confirmation stage where Congress' role is to adjudicate an individual already selected by the president (Cameron, Cover, & Segal, 1990;Guliuzza, Reagan, & Barrett, 1994;Martinek, Kemper, & Van Winkle, 2002). Other studies examine the rejection stage-those factors predicting Senate nonconfirmation of a nominee and the lessons learned from such rejections (Comiskey, 2004;Songer, 1979;Vieira & Gross 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Counting Congress In: Patterns of Success in Judicial Nomination Requests by Members of Congress to Presidents Eisenhower and Ford

Rottinghaus

Nicholson

2010

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The power to nominate and confirm federal judges is shared by Congress and the president, yet few works explicitly address the role that Congress plays in shaping the preselection pool for judicial nominees. In this article, we illuminate this debate by exploring judicial nomination requests from Members of Congress to the Eisenhower and Ford Administrations. In explaining who is nominated, the characteristics of the nominee matter more than the characteristics of the nominator, with the party affiliation of a nominee being the strongest predictive factor. Institutional characteristics are more prevalent at the confirmation stage, where the Senate relied more heavily on its members and the judicial experience of nominees than did presidents in nominating them. Given our results, partisanship appears to have mattered earlier than presumed in judicial nominations, with even ostensibly nonpartisan presidents such as Eisenhower understanding the importance of appointing like-minded individuals to lifetime positions on the bench.

show abstract

The Senate Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court Nominees: Measuring the Dynamics of Confirmation Criteria

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

To Whom It May Concern: Senators‘ Opening Statements at Supreme Court Confirmaton Hearings

To Whom It May Concern: Senators‘ Opening Statements at Supreme Court Confirmaton Hearings

“No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews”: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominee Candor from Harlan to Kagan

Counting Congress In: Patterns of Success in Judicial Nomination Requests by Members of Congress to Presidents Eisenhower and Ford

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About