Using traits conventionally believed to lead to elevation from the Circuit Courts to the Supreme Court, this paper uses an item response theory model to estimate latent elevation estimates for each Circuit Court judge nominated and confirmed between 1901 and 2017. I validate this measure by showing that it predicts which Circuit Court judges are promoted to the Supreme Court and which end up on the president’s Supreme Court shortlist. Furthermore, I investigate how the Senate strategically responds to the nomination of Circuit Court nominees with high elevation estimates. The Senate takes longer to confirm nominees with high elevation scores and is less likely to confirm them by voice vote, and these nominees receive a greater share of nay votes. This paper concludes by suggesting additional uses for the elevation estimates.
American Bar Association. 2009. Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How It Works. Chicago: Author.
2.
BartonBenjamin H.2012. “An Empirical Study of Supreme Court Justice Pre-appointment Experience.” Florida Law Review64:1137–87.
3.
BialikKristenGramlichJohn. 2017. Younger Supreme Court Appointees Stay on the Bench Longer, but There Are Plenty of Exceptions. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
4.
BinderSarah A.MaltzmanForrest. 2002. “Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal Judges, 1947-1998.” American Journal of Political Science46 (1): 190–99.
5.
BirnbaumAllan. 1968. “Some Latent Trait Models and Their Use in Inferring an Examinee’s Ability. ” In Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, edited by LordFrederic M.NovickMelvin R., 397–479. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
6.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J. 2016. “Courting the President: How Circuit Court Judges Alter Their Behavior for Promotion to the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science60 (1): 30–43.
7.
BonicaAdamSenMaya. 2017. “A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession.” Political Analysis25 (1): 114–21.
8.
BorthwickRobert J.SchauJordan R. 1991. “Gatekeepers of the Profession: An Empirical Profile of the Nation’s Law Professors.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform25:191.
BudziakJeffrey. 2013. “Blind Justice or Blind Ambition? The Influence of Promotion on Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Justice System Journal34 (3): 295–320.
11.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R. 1998. “Lobbying for Justice: Organized Interests Supreme Court Nominations, and United States Senate.” American Journal of Political Science42 (2): 499–523.
12.
CameronCharlesParkJee-Kwang. 2011. “Going Public When Opinion Is Contested: Evidence from Presidents’ Campaigns for Supreme Court Nominees, 1930-2009.” Presidential Studies Quarterly41 (3): 442–70.
13.
CaplanLincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Knopf.
14.
EpsteinLeeKnightJackMartinAndrew D. 2003. “The Norm of Prior Judicial Experience and Its Consequences for Career Diversity on the U.S. Supreme Court.” California Law Review91:903–65.
15.
EpsteinLeeLindstädtRenéSegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2006. “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.” Journal of Politics68 (2): 296–307.
16.
FarganisDionWedekingJustin. 2014. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the U.S. Senate: Reconsidering the Charade. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17.
FunkJanette L.RoggeRonald D. 2007. “Testing the Ruler with Item Response Theory: Increasing Precision of Measurement for Relationship Satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.” Journal of Family Psychology21 (4): 572–83.
18.
GilesMichael W.HettingerVirginia A.PeppersTodd. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly54 (3): 623–41.
19.
GilmourJohn B.1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
20.
HagleTimothy M.1993. “‘Freshman Effects’ for Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political Science37:1142–57.
21.
HittMatthew P.2013. “Presidential Success in Supreme Court Appointments: Informational Effects and Institutional Constraints.” Presidential Studies Quarterly43 (4): 792–813.
22.
HolmesLisa M.2007. “Presidential Strategy in the Judicial Appointment Process: ‘Going Public’ in Support of Nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research35 (5): 567–94.
23.
HuismanMark. 1999. “Missing Data in Behavioral Science Research: Investigation of a Collection of Data Sets.” M AND T SERIES32:23–46.
KrutzGlen S.FleisherRichardBondJon R. 1998. “From Abe Fortas to Zoe Baird: Why Some Presidential Nominations Fail in the Senate.” American Political Science Review92 (4): 871–81.
26.
LeeFrancis. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LynchMichael S.MadonnaAnthony J. 2013. “Viva Voce: Implications from the Disappearing Voice Vote, 1865–1996.” Social Science Quarterly94 (2): 530–50.
29.
MalteseJohn. 1995. The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
MartinekWendy L.KemperMarkVan WinkleSteven R. 2002. “To Advise and Consent: The Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations, 1977–1998.” Journal of Politics64 (2): 337–61.
31.
NemacheckChristine. 2008. Strategic Selection: Presidential Nominees of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
32.
OleszekWalter J.2001. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
33.
ReddingRichard E.2003. “‘Where Did You Go to Law School?’ Gatekeeping for the Professoriate and Its Implications for Legal Education.” Journal of Legal Education53 (4): 594–614.
34.
RottinghausBrandonNicholsonChris. 2010. “Counting Congress In: Patterns of Success in Judicial Nomination Requests by Members of Congress to Presidents Eisenhower and Ford.” American Politics Research38 (4): 691–717.
35.
SavchakElisha CarolHansfordThomas G.SongerDonald R.ManningKenneth L.CarpRobert A. 2006. “Taking It to the Next Level: The Elevation of District Court Judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science50 (2): 478–93.
36.
TheriaultSean M.2013. The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WardArtemusWeidenDavid L. 2006. Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.
ZukGaryGryskiGerard S.BarrowDeborah J. 1993. “Partisan Transformation of the Federal Judiciary, 1869-1992.” American Politics Quarterly21 (4): 439–57. doi:10.1177/1532673X9302100403.
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.
