IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v104y2023i3p364-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher N. Krewson
  • Jean R. Schroedel

Abstract

Background We argue that the political and partisan nature of modern judicial confirmation hearings weakens institutional support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Methods In making this argument, we respond directly to Carrington and French who, in contrast, focus on the individual behavior of nominees. Building on earlier work (Krewson and Schroedel), we also analyze how public views of the Court changed over the 10 weeks following the Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Results We find that partisan differences in institutional support diminished over this period and that the public remained steadfast in its support for nominees based on their legal characteristics and background more than their political attributes. Conclusion To the extent that the public supported institutional change, it seemed to be because they viewed the Court as falling short of legal expectations rather than because they want the Court to abandon its judicial role.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:3:p:364-369
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13275
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13275?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen P. Nicholson & Thomas G. Hansford, 2014. "Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 620-636, July.
    2. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2009. "Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, January.
    3. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    4. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira & Lester Kenyatta Spence, 2003. "Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 354-367, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    2. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2020. "Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1430-1441, July.
    3. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    4. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2022. "Mechanisms, measurements, and manifestations in evaluating the effects of confirmation hearings on Supreme Court legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1290-1294, September.
    5. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    6. James L. Gibson*, 2007. "“Truth” And “Reconciliation” As Social Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 257-281, April.
    7. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    8. Jonas Tallberg & Michael Zürn, 2019. "The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 581-606, December.
    9. Damon Cann & Jeff Yates, 2021. "Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2824-2835, November.
    10. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    11. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2009. "Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, January.
    12. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    13. von Haldenwang, Christian, 2016. "Measuring legitimacy: new trends, old shortcomings?," IDOS Discussion Papers 18/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    14. L. J. Zigerell, 2022. "Did Brett Kavanaugh's overt partisanship cause severe harm to the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 789-793, July.
    15. Jonski Kamil, 2021. "Public Confidence in the Judiciary and the Police – Does Respondents Internalize Montesquieu’s Ideas?," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:3:p:364-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.