Political Hearings Reinforce Legal Norms: Confirmation Hearings and Views of the United States Supreme Court

Abstract

Does the political nature of modern judicial confirmation hearings lead the public to think of the Supreme Court as a political body? Some political actors inevitably attack the institution during a confirmation hearing—which should lead to a decrease in support for it—but they attack the Court for acting extra-judicially. More generally, confirmation hearings send the American public an important and universal message: that the Supreme Court at least ought to be a legal institution. Based on original panel data closely surrounding the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, I find that confirmation hearings lead the public to place greater value on the non-political characteristics of a judge. While Supreme Court legitimacy reduced among Democrats over the course of the hearings, all respondents (including Democrats) became more likely to emphasize the importance of the legal qualities in a judge. For Democrats, the data suggests these two processes (reduced legitimacy and increased emphasis on a judge’s legal characteristics) worked independently. For Republicans—and consistent with positivity bias theory—enhanced legitimacy was predicted by a decrease in focus on the political aspects of a judge over the course of the confirmation hearing.