IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v29y2017i1p22-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How uncertainty about judicial nominees can distort the confirmation process

Author

Listed:
  • Maya Sen

    (John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA)

  • William Spaniel

    (Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, USA)

Abstract

Why are judicial nominees allowed to refuse to answer questions about important issues that could come before the courts? We address this question by examining the information environment surrounding judicial nominations. Using the Supreme Court as our example, we formulate a model that departs from the existing literature by incorporating the fact that the Senate often does not know what type of candidate the President is trying to appoint. Our model shows when the President and Senate are ideologically divergent, low information about nominees’ views results in the Senate occasionally rejecting acceptable nominees. However, when the President and Senate are ideologically close, the President benefits from leaving the process opaque—that is, allowing his nominees to avoid answering tough questions. Thus, even though low information can be costly to both parties, keeping the process nontransparent shields the President from being penalized for selecting more like-minded (and possibly extreme) judges.

Suggested Citation

  • Maya Sen & William Spaniel, 2017. "How uncertainty about judicial nominees can distort the confirmation process," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 22-47, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:29:y:2017:i:1:p:22-47
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629815603830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629815603830
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629815603830?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. David M. Primo & Sarah A. Binder & Forrest Maltzman, 2008. "Who Consents? Competing Pivots in Federal Judicial Selection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 471-489, July.
    2. Keith Krehbiel, 2007. "Supreme Court Appointments as a Move‐the‐Median Game," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 231-240, April.
    3. Cameron, Charles M. & Cover, Albert D. & Segal, Jeffrey A., 1990. "Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 525-534, June.
    4. Charles R. Shipan & Megan L. Shannon, 2003. "Delaying Justice(s): A Duration Analysis of Supreme Court Confirmations," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 654-668, October.
    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. Gary E Hollibaugh Jr, 2015. "Vacancies, vetting, and votes: A unified dynamic model of the appointments process," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 206-236, April.
    2. Alessandra Casella & Sébastien Turban & Gregory Wawro, 2017. "Storable votes and judicial nominations in the US Senate," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 243-272, April.
    3. David M. Primo & Sarah A. Binder & Forrest Maltzman, 2008. "Who Consents? Competing Pivots in Federal Judicial Selection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 471-489, July.
    4. Jinhee Jo, 2017. "Now or later? A dynamic analysis of judicial appointments," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 149-164, January.
    5. Jinhee Jo & David M Primo & Yoji Sekiya, 2017. "Policy dynamics and electoral uncertainty in the appointments process," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 124-148, January.
    6. Charles R. Shipan, 2008. "Partisanship, Ideology, and Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 55-76, March.
    7. Bustos, Álvaro & Jacobi, Tonja, 2015. "Communicating judicial retirement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 107-118.
    8. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    9. Silvia Console-Battilana & Kenneth A. Shepsle, 2009. "Nominations for Sale," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 413-449, October.
    10. Thomas H. Hammond & Jeffrey S. Hill, 1993. "Deference or Preference?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 23-59, January.
    11. Jinhee Jo & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2012. "Rational incompetence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 3-18, January.
    12. Schoenherr, Jessica A. & Black, Ryan C., 2019. "Friends with benefits: Case significance, amicus curiae, and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 43-53.
    13. Michael A Bailey & Albert Yoon, 2011. "‘While there’s a breath in my body’: The systemic effects of politically motivated retirement from the Supreme Court," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 293-316, July.
    14. Kenneth Shepsle & Barry Weingast, 2012. "Why so much stability? Majority voting, legislative institutions, and Gordon Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 83-95, July.
    15. Stuart Minor Benjamin & Georg Vanberg, 2016. "Judicial Retirements and the Staying Power of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-26, March.
    16. Charles M. Cameron & Jee‐Kwang Park, 2009. "How Will They Vote? Predicting the Future Behavior of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937–2006," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 485-511, September.
    17. Andonie, Costel, 2023. "Dismissal power," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    18. Caitlin Ainsley, 2022. "Federal reserve appointments and the politics of senate confirmation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 93-110, January.
    19. Harden Jeffrey J., 2012. "Improving Statistical Inference with Clustered Data," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-30, January.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:29:y:2017:i:1:p:22-47. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.