Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: In their analysis of the legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence expound the theory of positivity bias. This theory asserts that pre-existing institutional loyalty shapes perceptions of and judgments about court decisions and events. In this paper, we use the theory of positivity bias to investigate the preferences of Americans regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. More specifically, we derive from that theory the hypothesis that Alito confirmation preferences are shaped by pre-existing commitments to the Supreme Court. We demonstrate that those who have a high level of loyalty toward the Supreme Court rely much more heavily on criteria of judiciousness in forming their opinions on whether to confirm Alito. We conclude that institutional loyalty is an important frame through which Americans view the activity of their Supreme Court, and overcoming the presumptions built into that frame is essential if an opposition is to succeed in opposing a presidential nomination.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Martha Alito's emotional breakdown during her husband's 2005 Senate Confirmation Hearings indicated to many that the Senate engaged in character assassination rather than information gathering about Samuel Alito, Jr. Using the Bales' Interaction Process Analysis and other methodology, I will code eight Senate hearings spanning 8 presidents, from Justice John Harlan to Samuel Alito, Jr. for evidence to determine whether the Senate has lost its sense of civility toward Supreme Court nominees over the past 50 years.

The Bales’ Interaction process “sees the group’s activity as divided between two foci: an external component directed toward problem solution, task activity or dealing with the environment; and an internal component aimed at meeting the needs of the members, keeping the group together, and the expression of feeling” (Lutzger 1969, 143). This group-level analysis quantifies the interaction of group members using twelve categories, ranging from “giving suggestions” to “showing antagonism” where the speaker deflates the status of another or defends or asserts self. (Lutzger 1969, 144). Lutzger coded the interaction of the committee members at hearings with each other and with the hearing witness. My analysis will include the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito (2005), Stephen Breyer (1994), Clarence Thomas (1991), Sandra Day O'Connor (1981), William Rehnquist (1971), Abe Fortas (1965) , Byron White (1962), and John Harlan (1955).

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: We argue that President Bush’s primary motivation in selecting High Court nominees was his desire to achieve a Supreme Court that is sympathetic to claims of executive authority. We suggest, however, that the Senate missed an opportunity to make presidential power the central theme of the confirmation hearings. Instead, the issue was virtually ignored during the Roberts hearings and lost in the sea of topics discussed during the Alito hearings. Through a content analysis of the hearings, we document how the Senate’s failed to highlight the issue of executive authority, thereby missing a unique opportunity to foster public debate on a controversial topic and possibly scuttle the nominations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In all President George W. Bush made three nominations to the Supreme Court: John Roberts, Harriet Miers, and Samuel Alito. I suggest that a key factor in the selection of each of these nominees was their stance on the issue of executive authority. While evidence suggests that on a number of issues Miers was a very different nominee—or at least a potentially very different nominee—from Roberts and Alito, I submit that on the issue of executive authority all three were seen by the Bush administration as reliable votes for the New Paradigm or Unitary Executive theory of government. For example, in a November 2000 speech at a meeting of the conservative Federalist Society, Alito remarked that the Constitution “makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that… The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power—the whole thing.” Did the Senate make the issue a priority during Alito’s confirmation hearings? Was the issue treated in a partisan fashion? Was the nominee forthcoming or evasive in his responses on the topic? In order to answer these queries, I employ a content analysis of the questioning behavior of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as Alito’s responses.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study examines the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over the nominations of John G. Roberts, Jr. for Chief Justice, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. for Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court through the lens of civility. I first establish five standards for civil debate in the Senate, and then apply those standards to the hearings. Republicans argue that Democrats and their surrogates (i.e. “special interests”) violate civility by mounting personal attacks on the nominees and by engaging in ideological demonization, rather than focusing on reasoned debate. Democrats accuse Republicans (as well as Roberts, Alito, and President Bush) of violating civility by refusing to fully engage in discussion, while portraying their own line of questioning and argument as necessitated by a sense of social responsibility. In other words, Republicans portray themselves as guardians of civility while Democrats position themselves as socially responsible advocates for truth. At issue in these arguments is not only whether the hearings themselves are being conducted in a fair and civil fashion, but whether civility and social responsibility are at odds with one another as goals in Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The hearings therefore constitute a meta-debate over the role of civility and social responsibility in Senate hearings.