This study seeks to understand long-standing structural changes within the executive—Senate relationships that govern the judicial appointment process. Utilizing a new source of data that comprises district court appointments from 1901 through 2006, the analysis models the duration of selection and confirmation events to find evidence of interbranch constraint. Temporal variance and heteroskedasticity in these measures suggest that the last century of appointment activity can be divided into four distinct regimes that reflect a repeating cycle of executive independence and senatorial constraint, which in turn helps integrate existing accounts of change and conflict within the appointment process of federal judges.
Bell, Lauren Cohen.2002a. Senatorial discourtesy: The Senate’s use of delay to shape the federal judiciary. Political Research Quarterly55:589-607.
2.
---. 2002b. Warring factions: Interest groups, money, and the new politics of Senate confirmation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
3.
Beth, Richard S.2005. "Entrenchment" of Senate procedure and the "nuclear option" for change: Possible proceedings and their implications. Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2005 .
4.
Binder, Sarah A.2004. Origins of the Senate "blue slip": The politics of creating Senate norms. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago .
5.
Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman .2002. Senatorial delay in confirming federal judges, 1947-1998. American Journal of Political Science46:190-99.
6.
---. 2004. The limits of senatorial courtesy. Legislative Studies Quarterly29:5-22.
7.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. , and Bradford S. Jones.1997. Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science41:1414-61.
8.
---. 2004. Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists . New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. , and Christopher J. W. Zorn.2001. Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science45:972-88.
10.
Brown, R.L., J. Durbin, and J.M. Evans.1975. Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological)37:149-92.
11.
Cameron, Charles M., Albert D. Cover, and Jeffrey A. Segal .1990. Senate voting on Supreme Court nominees: A neoinstitutional model. American Political Science Review84:525-34.
12.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson .1989. Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
13.
Carey, George W., and James McClellan, Ed. 2001.The federalist. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
14.
Chase, Harold W.1972. Federal judges: The appointing process. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
15.
Epstein, Lee, René Lindstädt, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland .2006. The changing dynamics of Senate voting on Supreme Court nominees. Journal of Politics68:296-307.
16.
Goldman, Sheldon.1997. Picking federal judges: Lower court selection from Roosevelt through Reagan. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Harris, Joseph P.1953. The advice and consent of the Senate: A study of the confirmation of appointments by the United States Senate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
History of the Federal Judiciary.2006. Federal judges biographical database. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
19.
Martinek, Wendy L.2000. Lower federal court confirmation database. Lansing: Michigan State University.
20.
Martinek, Wendy L., Mark Kemper, and Steven R. Van Winkle .2002. To advise and consent: The Senate and lower federal court nominations, 1977-1998. Journal of Politics64:337-61.
21.
Massie, Tajuana D., Thomas G. Hansford, and Donald R. Songer .2004. the timing of presidential nominations to the lower federal courts. Political Research Quarterly57:145-54.
22.
Moraski, Bryon J., and Charles R. Shipan .1999. The politics of Supreme Court nominations: A theory of institutional constraints and choices. American Journal of Political Science43:1069-95.
23.
Palmer, Betsy.2003. Evolution of the Senate’s role in the nomination and confirmation process. Congressional Research Service , June 5, 2003.
24.
Ogundele, Ayo, and Linda Camp Keith .1999. Reexamining the impact of the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly52:403-20.
25.
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal .1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Scherer, Nancy.2005. Scoring points: Politicians, activists, and the lower federal court appointment process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover .1989. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review83:557-65.
28.
Sinclair, Barbara.2006. Party wars: Polarization and the politics of national policy making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
29.
Steigerwalt, Amy.2004. Death to nominations: Senatorial courtesy, holds, and other ways to kill a court of appeals nomination. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Chicago.
