Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court

Abstract

Supreme Court vacancies are now characterized by great partisan efforts to confirm—or impede—the nomination. Amid a politicized vacancy before the 2020 election, there was cause to question the conclusion that these vacancies do not harm the judiciary in the public’s eyes. We utilize panel data collected before and after Justice Ginsburg’s death to investigate the effects of the vacancy and partisan posturing to fill it. We find that the battle over the vacancy yielded decreases in diffuse support among Democrats, particularly among those who read a story about Senate Republicans’ willingness to fill an election-year vacancy after refusing to in 2016. Support for federal judicial elections decreased across survey waves, but only among certain subsets of respondents. Finally, belief that one’s preferred 2020 candidate would nominate the next justice significantly influenced support for curbing. Elected branch politics appear capable of influencing the mass public’s level of support for the Court.

Keywords

Supreme Court legitimacy Court-curbing vacancies confirmations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansolabehere

Rodden

Snyder

J. M.

(2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080210.

Armaly

M. T.

(2018a). Extra-judicial actor induced change in Supreme court legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917750278.

Armaly

M. T.

(2018b). Politicized nominations and public attitudes toward the Supreme court in the polarization era. Justice System Journal, 39(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2017.1370403.

Armaly

M. T.

(2020a). Loyalty over fairness: Acceptance of unfair Supreme court procedures. Political Research Quarterly, 74(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920944470.

Armaly

M. T.

(2020b). Who can impact the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy? Justice System Journal, 41(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2019.1687371.

Armaly

M. T.

Enders

A. M.

(forthcoming). Affective polarization and support for the U.S. Supreme court. Political Research Quarterly.

Badas

(2019). The applied legitimacy index: A new approach to measuring judicial legitimacy. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1848–1861. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12660.

Bartels

L. M.

(1999). Panel effects in the American national election studies. Political Analysis, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029802.

Bartels

B. L.

Johnston

C. D.

(2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x.

10.

Bartels

B. L.

Johnston

C. D.

(2020). Curbing the court: Why the public constrains judicial independence. Cambridge University Press.

11.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057.

12.

Binder

S. A.

Maltzman

(2009). Advice and dissent: The struggle to shape the federal judiciary. Brookings Institution Press.

13.

Boyd

C. L.

Collins

P. M.

Jr. Ringhand

L. A.

(2018). The role of nominee gender and race at US Supreme court confirmation hearings. Law & Society Review, 52(4), 871–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12362.

14.

Bryan

A. C.

Ringsmuth

E. M.

(2016). Jeremiad or weapon of words?: The power of emotive language in Supreme court dissents. Journal of Law and Courts, 4(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1086/684788.

15.

Caldeira

G. A.

Gibson

J. L.

(1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635–664. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585.

16.

Cameron

C. M.

Kastellec

J. P.

Park

J.-K.

(2013). Voting for justices: Change and continuity in confirmation voting 1937–2010. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000017.

17.

Carrington

N. T.

French

(forthcoming). One bad apple spoils the bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in institutional support for the Supreme Court. Social Science Quarterly.

18.

Christenson

D. P.

Glick

D. M.

(2015). Chief justice Roberts’s health Care decision disrobed: The microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12150.

19.

Clark

T. S.

Kastellec

J. P.

(2015). “Source cues and public support for the Supreme court. American Politics Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x14560809.

20.

Clifford

Sheagley

Piston

(2021). Increasing precision without altering Treatment effects: repeated measures designs in survey experiments. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000241.

21.

Collins

P. M.

Jr. Eshbaugh-Soha

(2020). The president and the Supreme court: Going public on judicial decisions from Washington to Trump. Cambridge University Press.

22.

Collins

P. M.

Ringhand

L. A.

(2016). The institutionalization of Supreme court confirmation hearings. Law & Social Inquiry, 41(1), 126–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12139.

23.

Davis

(2005). Electing justice: Fixing the Supreme court nomination process. Oxford University Press.

24.

Denison

Wedeking

Zilis

M. A.

(2020). Negative media coverage of the Supreme court: The interactive role of opinion language, coalition size, and ideological signals. Social Science Quarterly, 101(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12732.

25.

Druckman

J. N.

Fein

Leeper

T. J.

(2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000123.

26.

Edmondson

(2020). ‘You would do the same’: Graham is defiant on Supreme court reversal. 21 September 2020. The New York Times. Available https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/politics/lindsey-graham-supreme-court-reversal.html.

27.

Epstein

Lindstädt

Segal

J. A.

Westerland

(2006). The changing dynamics of senate voting on Supreme court nominees. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00407.x.

28.

Farganis

Wedeking

(2014). Supreme court confirmation hearings in the US senate: Reconsidering the charade. University of Michigan Press.

29.

Fogarty

B. J.

Qadri

S. N.

Wohlfarth

P. C.

(2020). Personalizing the US Supreme court through attention to individual justices. Social Science Quarterly, 101(2), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12771.

30.

Frankel

L. L.

Hillygus

D. S.

(2014). Looking beyond demographics: Panel attrition in the ANES and GSS. Political Analysis, 22(3), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt020.

31.

Gibson

J. L.

(2007). The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme court in a polarized polity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 507–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00098.x.

32.

Gibson

J. L.

(2017). Performance evaluations are not legitimacy judgments: A caution about interpreting public opinions toward the United States Supreme court. Wash. UJL & Pol’y, 54, 71.

33.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

(2009b). Confirmation politics and the legitimacy of the US Supreme court: Institutional loyalty, positivity bias, and the Alito nomination. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00362.x.

34.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

(2009a). Citizens, courts, and confirmations: Positivity theory and the judgments of the American people. Princeton University Press.

35.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

Spence

L. K.

(2003a). Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00025.

36.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

Spence

L. K.

(2003b). The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise? British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123403000243.

37.

Gibson

J. L.

Lodge

Woodson

(2014). Losing, but accepting: Legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial Authority. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 837–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12104.

38.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2014). The legitimacy of the US Supreme court: Conventional wisdoms and recent challenges thereto. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10(1), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546.

39.

Glick

(NP). How diffuse is influence over diffuse support for the court? Evidence from the fight over justice Ginsburg’s seat.

40.

Greenhouse

(2017). Will politics tarnish the Supreme Court’s legitimacy? 26 October 2017. The New York Times. Available https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/politics-supreme-court-legitimacy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion.

41.

Haglin

Jordan

Higgins Merrill

Ura

J. D.

(forthcoming). Ideology and public support for the Supreme court. Political Research Quarterly.

42.

Hasen

R. L.

(2019). Polarization and the judiciary. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051317-125141.

43.

Hetherington

M. J.

Rudolph

T. J.

(2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.

44.

Hitt

M. P.

Searles

(2018). Media coverage and public approval of the US Supreme Court. Political Communication, 35(4), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1467517.

45.

Hoekstra

V. J.

Segal

J. A.

(1996). The shepherding of local public opinion: The Supreme court and lamb’s chapel. The Journal of Politics, 58(04), 1079–1102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960150.

46.

Horton

J. J.

Rand

D. G.

Zeckhauser

R. J.

(2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9.

47.

Hubbuch

(2020). Marquette poll: Ginsburg most recognized justice; 2/3 support election year confirmation hearing. Wisconsin State Journal. 20 September 2020. Available https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/marquette-poll-ginsburg-most-recognized-justice-2-3-support-election-year-confirmation-hearing/article_ebb2cc91-843e-5150-96e1-ea2884fd0a5b.html.

48.

Krewson

C. N.

(2019). “Save this honorable court: Shaping public perceptions of the Supreme court off the bench. Political Research Quarterly, 72(3), 686–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918801563.

49.

Krewson

C. N.

(NP). Political hearings reinforce legal norms: Senate confirmation hearings, Supreme court legitimacy, and the judicial role. Presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

50.

Krewson

Lassen

Owens

R. J.

(2018). Research note: Twitter and the Supreme court: An examination of congressional tweets about the Supreme court. Justice System Journal, 39(4), 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2018.1483787.

51.

Krewson

C. N.

Schroedel

J. R.

(2020). Public views of the US Supreme court in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation. Social Science Quarterly, 101(4), 1430–1441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12820.

52.

Kuhn

D. P.

(2012). The incredible polarization and politicization of the Supreme court. The Atlantic, 29.

53.

McClosky

Brill

1983. The dimensions of tolerance: what Americans believe about civil liberties. Russell sage foundation.

54.

Millhiser

(2016). Senate GOP can’t play politics in confirming president Obama’s pick for justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement. 14 February 2016. New York Daily News. Available http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-play-politics-scalia-successor-article-1.2531013.

55.

Nelson

M. J.

Gibson

J. L.

(2019). “How does hyperpoliticized rhetoric affect the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy? The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1512–1516. https://doi.org/10.1086/704701.

56.

Nelson

M. J.

Tucker

P. D.

(2021). The stability and durability of the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy. The Journal of Politics, 83(2), 767–771. https://doi.org/10.1086/710143.

57.

Nichols

(2020). Trump and McConnell are undoing the Supreme Court’s constitutional legitimacy. 28 September 2020. The Nation. Available https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-mcconnell-legitimate/.

58.

Nicholson

S. P.

Hansford

T. G.

(2014). Partisans in robes: party cues and public Acceptance of Supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12091.

59.

Pesca

(2020). Trump and McConnell are building the most visible symbol of a failed state. 26 September 2020. Slate. Available https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-legitimacy-crisis-rbg-amy-coney-barrett.html.

60.

Ramirez

M. D.

(2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the US Supreme court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00660.x.

61.

Rogowski

J. C.

Stone

A. R.

(2019). How political contestation over judicial nominations polarizes Americans’ attitudes toward the Supreme court. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000383.

62.

Salamone

M. F.

(2013). Judicial consensus and public opinion: conditional response to Supreme court majority size. Political Research Quarterly.

63.

Salamone

M. F.

(2018). Perceptions of a polarized court: How division among justices shapes the Supreme Court’s public image. Temple University Press.

64.

Schneider

(2020). Trump offered Amy Coney Barrett the SCOTUS job less than 72 hours after Ginsburg’s death. 29 September 2020. CNN. Available https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/29/politics/barrett-trump-questionnaire/index.html.

65.

Schoenherr

J. A.

Lane

E. A.

Armaly

M. T.

(2020). The purpose of senatorial grandstanding during Supreme court confirmation hearings. Journal of Law and Courts, 8(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1086/709913.

66.

Segers

(2020). McConnell says Trump’s nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg ”will receive a vote on the floor” of Senate. 19 September 2020. CBS News. Available https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcconnell-trump-supreme-court-nominee-senate-ruth-bader-ginsburg/.

67.

Solberg

(2017). “Covering the courts.” the Oxford handbook of US judicial behavior (p. 416).

68.

Solberg

R. S.

Waltenburg

E. N.

(2014). The media, the Court, and the misrepresentation: The new myth of the Court. Routledge.

69.

Stoutenborough

J. W.

Haider-Markel

D. P.

Allen

M. D.

(2006). Reassessing the impact of Supreme court decisions on public opinion: Gay civil rights cases. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900310.

70.

Ziegler

(2020). A dangerous moment for the court. 21 September 2020. The Atlantic. Available https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/dangerous-court-legitimacy/616418/.

71.

Zilis

M. A.

(2018). Minority groups and judicial legitimacy: Group affect and the incentives for judicial responsiveness. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917735174.

72.

Zilis

M. A.

(2021). The rights paradox: How group attitudes shape US Supreme Court legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.

73.

Zilis

M. A.

(Forthcoming). Cognitive heuristics, inter-institutional politics, and public perceptions of insulated institutions: The case of the US Supreme court. International Journal of Public Opinion Research.

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.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB