Change and Continuity in Citizens’ Evaluations of Supreme Court Nominees

Abstract

In the 1980s and 1990s, supporters of Supreme Court nominees tended to characterize their views in non-ideological terms while opponents relied more on ideological justifications. Since then, the judicial appointment process has been increasingly entangled with partisan conflict. Given the heightened focus on nominees’ ideological preferences, we expect that citizens are now more likely to rely on political over apolitical justifications, even if they support the nominee. We use data from a telephone survey in 2017 after the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to test this proposition. We find that contemporary citizens rely more frequently on political justifications for their support of nominees than then they did in the Reagan-Bush era. Opponents remain more likely to invoke political orientations, but the disparity has declined. The findings reveal both change and continuity in citizens’ evaluations of Supreme Court nominees.