How do Americans evaluate potential US Supreme Court candidates? Using a novel, two-part conjoint experiment, I show that respondents put high importance on the political leanings of potential Court candidates, a finding in contrast with the scholarly view that the public views the Court as different from other, more political institutions. Indeed, when respondents are given information about a nominee’s partisan leanings, they rely extensively on that information in deciding whether to support the candidate, whether they trust the candidate, and whether they find the candidate qualified. By contrast, when partisan information is withheld, respondents appear to use other kinds of signals, such as race, to fill in the gaps. Those who are most knowledgeable about the Court are most influenced by these partisan signals, providing further support for the importance of political heuristics. The results suggest that the public’s evaluation of judicial nominees is more in line with how it evaluates other political actors. They also suggest that even candidates with excellent qualifications need not garner bipartisan public support.
AngusCampbellConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1966. The American Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
BairdVanessa A.GanglAmy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology27 (4): 597–614.
3.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.2012. “Political Justice? Perceptions of Politicization and Public Preferences toward the Supreme Court Appointment Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (1): 105–16.
4.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 184–99.
5.
BartelsLarry M.2002a. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior24 (2): 117–50.
6.
BartelsLarry M.2002b. “The Impact of Candidate Traits in American Presidential Elections.” In Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, edited by Anthony King, 44–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BerelsonBernard R.LazarsfeldPaul F.McPheeWilliam N.1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
BerinskyAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (3): 351–68.
9.
BonicaAdamChiltonAdam S.SenMaya. 2015. “The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers.” Journal of Legal Analysis8:277–335. doi:10.1093/jla/lav011.
10.
BonicaAdamSenMaya. 2016. “The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Politicize the Judiciary.” Working paper. http://j.mp/11g7YJZ.
11.
BoydChristina L.EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 389–411.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36 (3): 635–64.
13.
CampbellAngusGurinGeraldMillerWarren E.1954. The Voter Decides. Oxford: Row, Peterson, and Co.
14.
Carpini DelliMichael X.KeeterScott. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
15.
CarseyThomas M.LaymanGeoffrey C.2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science50 (2): 464–77.
16.
CaseyGregory. 1974. “The Supreme Court and Myth: An Empirical Investigation.” Law & Society Review8 (3): 385–419.
17.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2014. “Legitimacy, Ideology and Negativity Bias in the Court’s Roller Coaster Week of Salient Decisions.” Working paper.
18.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’ Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–18.
DahlRobert A.1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy Maker.” Journal of Public Law6:279–95.
21.
DownsAnthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” The Journal of Political Economy65:135–50.
22.
GerberAlan S.HuberGregory A.2009. “Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?”American Political Science Review103 (3): 407–26.
23.
GibsonJames L.2007. “The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4 (3): 507–38.
24.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009a. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009b. “Confirmation Politics and the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination.” American Journal of Political Science53 (1): 139–55.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009c. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” The Journal of Politics71 (2): 429–41.
27.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?”Law & Society Review45 (1): 195–219.
28.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
30.
GillRebecca D.LazosSylvia R.WatersMallory M.2011. “Are Judicial Performance Evaluations Fair to Women and Minorities? A Cautionary Tale from Clark County, Nevada.” Law & Society Review45 (3): 731–59.
31.
GimpelJames G.WolpertRobin M.1996. “Opinion-Holding and Public Attitudes toward Controversial Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly49 (1): 163–76.
32.
GorenPaul. 2004. “Political Sophistication and Policy Reasoning: A Reconsideration.” American Journal of Political Science48 (3): 462–78.
33.
GreenPaul E.KriegerAbba M.WindYoram. 2001. “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects.” Interfaces31 (3): S56–73.
34.
GreenPaul E.RaoVithala. 1971. “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data.” Journal of Marketing Research8:355–63.
35.
HainmuellerJensHopkinsDaniel J.YamamotoTeppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multi-dimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis22 (1): 1–30.
36.
HetheringtonMarc J.SmithJoseph L.2007. “Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the US Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly71 (1): 40–66.
37.
HoekstraValerieLaRoweNicholas. 2013. “Judging Nominees: An Experimental Test of the Impact of Qualifications and Divisiveness on Public Support for Nominees to the Federal Courts.” Justice System Journal34 (1): 38–61.
38.
JohnstonChristopher D.BartelsBrandon L.2010. “Sensationalism and Sobriety: Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes toward American Courts.” Public Opinion Quarterly4 (2): 260–85.
39.
JohnstonChristopher D.HillygusD. SunshineBartelsBrandon L.2014. “Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly78 (4): 963–73.
40.
KaganElena. 1995. “Confirmation Messes, Old and New.” The University of Chicago Law Review62:919–42.
41.
LauRichard R.RedlawskDavid P.2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science45 (4): 951–71.
42.
LodgeMiltonHamillRuth. 1986. “A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing.” American Political Science Review80 (2): 505–19.
43.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88 (1): 63–76.
44.
McDermottMonika L.1998. “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly51 (4): 895–918.
45.
PeresieJennifer L.2005. “Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Yale Law Journal114 (7): 1759–1892.
46.
PopkinSamuel L.1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
PostRobertSiegelReva. 2006. “Questioning Justice: Law and Politics in Judicial Confirmation Hearings.” Yale Law Journal Pocket Part115:38–38.
48.
RahnWendy M.1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37 (2): 472–96.
49.
SchebJohn M.LyonsWilliam. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly81 (4): 928–40.
50.
SchererNancy. 2004. “Blacks on the Bench.” Political Science Quarterly119 (4): 655–75.
51.
SchererNancyCurryBrett. 2010. “Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the US Courts.” The Journal of Politics72 (1): 90–104.
52.
SnidermanPaul M.TetlockPhillip E.BrodyRichard A.1993. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
StokesDonald E.1962. “Party Loyalty and the Likelihood of Deviating Elections.” The Journal of Politics24 (4): 689–702.
54.
YarnoldBarbara M.2000. “Did Circuit Courts of Appeals Judges Overcome Their Own Religions in Cases Involving Religious Liberties? 1970-1990.” Review of Religious Research42 (1): 79–86.
55.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
