This article explores the basis of opinion formation and public attitudes toward recent Supreme Court nominees. The high salience of several re cent Court nominations has transformed the selection process from an elite affair to one with a popular dimension. We develop a model of opinion-holding in response to the Rehnquist, Bork, Souter, and Thomas nominations. We find that education and having an opinion about the president are strongly associated with opinion-holding about the nomi nees. We also find that presidential approval, party identification and ideology are all highly related to approval of the nominees. The influence of age, race, and gender on opinion-holding and evaluation tends to vary with the nomination. Of particular interest is the strong link we find be tween presidential evaluation and nominee evaluation. Presidents serve as important cues for those who have opinions about Court nominees.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, R. Douglas.1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2.
Caldeira, Gregory A.1986. "Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court." American Political Science Review80: 1209-26.
3.
_. 1991. "Courts and Public Opinion." In John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson, eds., The American Courts. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
4.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson .1992. "The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court." American Journal of Political Science36: 635-64.
5.
Caldeira, Gregory A. and Charles E. Smith .1993. "The Dynamics of Public Opinion on the Thomas Nomination." Paper delivered at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
6.
Cameron, Charles M., Albert D. Cover, and Jeffrey A. Segal .1990. "Supreme Court Nominations and the Rational Presidency." Paper delivered at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
7.
Casey, Gregory.1976. "Popular Perceptions of Supreme Court Rulings." American Politics Quarterly4: 3-45.
8.
Conover, Pamela Johnston.1988. "Feminists and the Gender Gap." Journal of Politics50: 985-1010.
9.
Converse, J.M.1977. "Predicting No Opinion in the Polls." Public Opinion Quarterly40: 515-530.
10.
Dolbeare, Kenneth, and Phillip E. Hammond .1968. "The Political Party Basis of Attitudes toward the Supreme Court." Public Opinion Quarterly32: 16-30.
11.
Felice, John D., and Herbert F Weisberg .1988-89. "The Changing Importance of Ideology, Party and Region in Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees, 1953-1988 ." Kentucky Law Journal77: 509-530.
12.
Frankovic, Kathleen, and Joyce Gelb.1992. "Public Opinion and the Thomas Nomination." PS: Political Science and Politics25: 481-84.
13.
George, Tracey E., and Lee Epstein.1992. "On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision-Making." American Political Science Review86: 323-37.
14.
Gilens, Martin. 1988. "Gender and Support for Reagan: A Comprehensive Model of Presidential Approval." American Journal of Political Science32: 19-49.
15.
Gimpel, James G., and Lewis S. Ringel .1995. "Understanding Court Nominee Evaluation and Approval: Mass Opinion in the Bork and Thomas Cases." Political Behavior, 17: 135-53.
16.
Gimpel, James G., and Robin Wolpert.1995. "Retaliation as a Form of Negative Voting: The Role of the Thomas Confirmation in the 1992 U.S. Senate Races ." Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
17.
Glass, David P1985. "Evaluating Presidential Candidates: Who Focuses on Their Personal Attributes?" Public Opinion Quarterly49: 517-34.
18.
Kemell, Samuel.1993. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership . Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
19.
Kessel, John H.1966. "Public Perceptions of the Supreme Court." Midwest Journal of Political Science10: 167-91.
20.
Krosnick, Jon A.1990. "Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America." Political Behavior12: 59-92.
21.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Michael A. Milburn .1990. "Psychological Determinants of Political Opinionation." Social Cognition8: 49-72.
22.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Shibley Telhami.1994. "Public Attitudes Toward Israel: A Study of the Attentive and Issue Publics." Unpublished mss. Ohio State University .
23.
Lau, Richard R., and David O. Sears, eds. 1985. Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
24.
Lodge, Milton, Kathleen McGraw, and Patrick Stroh.1989. "An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation." American Political Science Review83: 399-419.
25.
Luskin, Robert.1987. "Measuring Political Sophistication." American Journal of Political Science31: 856- 899.
26.
Mansbridge, Jane, and Katherine Tate.1992. "Race Trumps Gender: The Thomas Nomination in the Black Community." PS: Political Science and Politics25: 488-91.
27.
Massaro, John.1990. Supremely Political. Albany : State University of New York Press.
28.
Miller, Arthur H., Martin P Wattenberg, and Oksana Malanchuk .1986. "Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates." American Political Science Review80: 505-540.
29.
Mondak, Jeffrey.1993. "Public Opinion and Heuristic Processing of Source Cues ." Political Behavior15: 167-193.
30.
Murphy, Walter F., and Joseph Tanenhaus.1968. "Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court ." Law and Society Review2: 357-384.
31.
_. 1990. "Publicity, Public Opinion, and the Court." Northwestern University Law Review84: 985-1023.
32.
Overby, L. Marvin, Beth M. Henschen, Julie Strauss , and Michael H. Walsh.1992. "Courting Constituents? An Analysis of the Senate Confirmation Vote on Justice Clarence Thomas." American Political Science Review86: 997-1003.
33.
Overby, L. Marvin, and Beth Henschen.1994. "Race Trumps Gender? Women, African Americans and the Senate Confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas." American Politics Quarterly22: 62-73.
34.
Palley, Marian Lief, and Howard A. Palley .1992. "The Thomas Appointment: Defeats and Victories for Women." PS: Political Science and Politics25: 473-76.
35.
Paolino, Philip.1995. "Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections." American Journal of Political Science39: 294-313.
36.
Parker, Glenn R.1974. Political Beliefs about the Structure of Government: Congress and the Presidency. Beverly Hills: Sage.
37.
Segal, Jeffrey A., Charles M. Cameron, and Albert D. Cover1992. "A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations." American Journal of Political Science36: 96-121.
38.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold Spaeth.1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Harpreet Mahajan.1986. "Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s." Public Opinion Quarterly50: 42-61.
40.
Sinclair, Barbara.1992. "Senate Process, Congressional Politics, and the Thomas Nomination." PS: Political Science and Politics25: 477-80.
41.
Zaller, John.1991. "Information, Values and Opinion." American Political Science Review85: 1215-38.
42.
_. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
