Relying on theories of motivated reasoning, I hypothesize that individuals who favor a nominee will prefer a legalistic confirmation hearing, while those who oppose a nominee will prefer a politicized confirmation hearing. Analyzing survey data from five recent nominees and a survey experiment, I find support for this hypothesis. The results have implications for how the public interacts with the nature of the Court’s hybrid institutional structure. Specifically, I argue the results support the notion that the public engages in a political calculation when making judgements about the Court. When it serves their preferences, people will view the Court as a legalistic institution; however, when individuals believe there is an advantage in viewing the Court as a political institution, they are more likely to desire the Court to be evaluated in political ways.
AP-NORC Center. 2018. “The October 2018 AP-NORC Center Poll, 2018 [Dataset].” In Roper #31115620, Version 2. The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
2.
ArmalyMiles T. 2020. “Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures.” Political Research Quarterly.
3.
ArmalyMiles TLaneElizabeth A. 2022. “Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research.
4.
BadasAlex. 2016. “The Public’s Motivated Response to Supreme Court Decision- Making.” Justice System Journal37 (4): 318–330.
5.
BadasAlex. 2019. “The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy.” Social Science Quarterly.
6.
BadasAlex. 2020. “Elevation Potential Among Circuit Court Nominees and Its Effect on the Senate’s Confirmation Behavior.” Political Research Quarterly73 (1): 96–110.
7.
BadasAlexSimasElizabeth N.. 2021. “The Supreme Court as an Electoral Issue: Evidence from Three Studies.” Political Science Research and Methods.
8.
BadasAlexStaufferKatelyn E.. 2018. “Someone Like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 127–142.
9.
BadasAlexStaufferKatelyn E. 2022. “Descriptive Representation, Judicial Nominations, and Perceptions of Presidential Accomplishment.” Representation1–22.
10.
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.
11.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2012a. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57: 184–199.
12.
BartelsBrandon LJohnstonChristopher D. 2012b. “Political Justice? Perceptions of Politicization and Public Preferences Toward the Supreme Court Appointment Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (1): 105–116.
13.
BartelsBrandon LJohnstonChristopher D. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BartelsBrandon LJohnstonChristopher DMarkAlyx. 2015. “Lawyers’ Perceptions of the US Supreme Court: Is the Court a “Political” Institution?” Law & Society Review49 (3): 761–794.
15.
BassLeeannCameronCharles MKastellecJonathan P. 2020. “The Politics of Accountability in Supreme Court Nominations: Voter Recall and Assessment of Senator Votes on Nominees.”
16.
BerinskyAdamHuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.. 2012. “Using Mechanical Turk as a Subject Recruitment Tool for Experimental Research.” Policy Analysis20: 351–368.
17.
BlackRyan COwensRyan JArmalyMiles T. 2016. “A Well-Traveled Lot: A Research Note on Judicial Travel by US Supreme Court Justices.” Justice System Journal37 (4): 367–384.
18.
BramanEileen. 2006. “Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making.” The Journal of Politics68 (2): 308–321.
19.
BramanEileen. 2009. Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press.
20.
BramanEileenNelsonThomas E.. 2007. “Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science51 (4): 940–956.
21.
BybeeKeith J.2010. All Judges Are Political: Except When They Are Not: Acceptable Hypocrisies and the Rule of Law. Redwood City, California: Stanford University Press.
22.
CarringtonNathan TFrenchColin. 2021. “One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly.
23.
CBS News. 2006. “CBS News Poll: Presidential Approval/Politics/Supreme Court/National Security/Civil Rights/Immigration/Iraq/Foreign and Domestic Cars, 2006 [Dataset]”. Roper #31090957, Version 2. CBS News [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
24.
CBS News/New York Times Poll. 2009. “CBS News/New York Times Poll: Supreme Court/Health Care Reform, 2009 [Dataset]”. Roper #31091552, Version 2. CBS News/New York Times [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
25.
CliffordScottJewellRyan MWaggonerPhilip D. 2015. “Are Samples Drawn From Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics2 (4): 2053168015622072.
26.
ConversePhilip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid E.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
CoppockAlexander. 2018. “Generalizing From Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach.” Political Science Research and Methods7: 1–16.
28.
EpsteinLeeKnightJackMartinAndrew D.. 2003. “The Norm of Prior Judicial Experience and its Consequences for Career Diversity on the US Supreme Court.” California Law Review91: 903–965.
29.
FarganisDion.WedekingJustin. 2011. “No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominees Candor from Harlan to Kagan.” Law and Society Review.
30.
FarganisDionWedekingJustin. 2014. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the US Senate: Reconsidering the charade. University of Michigan Press.
31.
Fox News. 2020. “Fox News Poll, 2020 [Dataset]”. Roper #31117745, Version 1. Shaw and Co. Research/Beacon Research [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
32.
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): 572–583.
33.
GibsonJames L. 2015. “Legitimacy is for Losers: The Interconnections of Institutional Legitimacy, Performance Evaluations, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” In Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority, 81–116. Springer.
34.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009a. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmation: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton University Press.
35.
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): 139–155.
36.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester K.. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–201.
37.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J. 2017. “Reconsidering Positivity Theory: What Roles do Politicization, Ideological Disagreement, and Legal Realism Play in Shaping US Supreme Court Legitimacy?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies14 (3): 592–617.
38.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Social Review48 (4): 837–866.
39.
GimpelJames GWolpertRobin Mf. 1996. “Opinion-holding and public attitudes to- ward controversial Supreme Court nominees.” Political Research Quarterly49 (1): 163–176.
40.
GlennonColinStrotherLogan. 2019. “The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric.” Journal of Law and Courts7 (2): 241–261.
41.
GlickDavid. 2021. “How Diffuse is Influence Over Diffuse Support for the Court? Evidence from the Fight Over Justice Ginsburg’s Seat.”
42.
HibbingJohn RTheiss-MorseElizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43.
HittMatthew P. 2013. “Presidential Success in Supreme Court Appointments: Informational Effects and Institutional Constraints.” Presidential Studies Quarterly43 (4): 792–813.
44.
HoekstraValerieLaRoweNicholas. 2013. “Judging Nominees: An Experimental Test of the Impact of Qualifications and Divisiveness on Public Support for Nominees to the Federal Courts.” The Justice System Journal34 (2): 38–61.
45.
KennedyRyanCliffordScottBurleighTylerWaggonerPhilip DJewellRyanWinterNicholas JG. 2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods8 (4): 614–629.
46.
KrewsonChristopher NSchroedelJean R. 2020. “Public Views of the US Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation.” Social Science Quarterly.
47.
KrewsonChristopherOwensRyan J. 2021. “Public Support for Judicial Philosophies: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts.
48.
KundaZiva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin108: 480–498.
49.
LaRoweNicholas. 2010. “On and Off the Supreme Court Beat: A Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of the Supreme Court from 1997-2004.” In APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper.
50.
LodgeM.TaberC.. 2000. “Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of rationality, edited by JamiesonLupiaJamiesonMathew D., 183–213.
51.
NewsHour/NPR, PBS. 2018. “NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll, 2018 [Dataset]”. Roper #31115585, Version 1. Marist College Institute for Public Opinion [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
52.
Pew Research Center. 2009. “Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Poll: July 2009, 2009 [Dataset]”. Roper #31111850, Version. Opinion Research Corporation [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
53.
Pew Research Center. 2010. “Pew Research Center Poll: July 2010, Omnibus Week 1– Economy/Knowledge Quiz, 2010 [Dataset]”. Roper #31096013, Version 2. Princeton Survey Research Associates International [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
54.
RogowskiJon CStoneAndrew R. 2019. “How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court.” British Journal of Political Science51: 1–19.
55.
SchebJohn MIILyonsWilliam. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluations of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly81: 928–940.
56.
SchoenherrJessica ALaneElizabethArmalyMiles T. 2018. “The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding During Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.” Journal of Law and Courts.
57.
SenMaya. 2016. “How Political Signals Affect Public Support for Judicial Nominations: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly.
58.
SolbergRorie. 2017. “Covering the Courts.” In The Oxford Handbook of US Judicial Behavior, 416.
59.
TamanahaBrain Z. 2009. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
60.
TaylorStuart. 1987. “A.B.A Panel Gives Bork a Top Rating but Vote is Split.” The New York Times.
61.
ThomasClarence. 1991. “Transcript of Clarence Thomas’ Confirmation Hearing.”
62.
ThomasKyle ACliffordScott. 2017. “Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments.” Computers in Human Behavior77: 184–197.
63.
VanderMolenKathryn. 2017. “Stealth Democracy Revisited: Reconsidering Preferences for Less Visible Government.” Political Research Quarterly70 (3): 687–698.
64.
Washington Post/ABC News. 2005. “ABC News/Washington Post Poll: Iraq/Robert’s Supreme Court Nomination/Illegal Immigration, 2005 [Dataset]”. In Roper #31086930, Version 2. TNS Intersearch [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research [distributor]. Access Date: Feb-08-2021.
65.
XenosMichael. 2008. “New Mediated Deliberation: Blog and Press Coverage of the Alito Nomination.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13 (2): 485–503.
66.
ZallerJohnFeldmanStanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions and Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science36: 579–616.
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.
