Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Ideology and political
maneuvers cloud even the smallest amount of controversy in the
confirmation of judicial appointments in the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Aside from the rare impeachment of a judge, the Judiciary
Committee is the one venue that provides a valuable one-time in-depth
check on the quality of lifetime appointments to the judiciary. This
small window for a check on the vast power of the judiciary requires
continual quantitative analysis to determine the status of the
underlying criteria within the Senate Judiciary Committee. This project
is aimed at putting forth a model that attempts explanation of varying
criteria across congresses, appointees, and Senators on the Judiciary
Committee. This study focuses on criteria in the 105th, 106th, and
107th Congresses extending the analysis proposed and applied by
Guliuzza (1994). Guliuzza’s confirmation criteria are measured through
the content analysis of questions asked by Senators on the Judiciary
Committee to nominees to the Supreme Court. This paper applies the same
schema to Circuit Court nominees. Questions are coded into three
categories. Questions of character, competency, and constitutionalism
are used to determine the criteria for confirmation used by the
committee. The breakdown of these categories is then used in a
multinomial logit to discern if there are effects from the issue
positions of Senators, their support of the president’s legislative
agenda, and the record of the circuit court to which the nomination is
being made. This analysis shows to what extent ideology and political
calculations affect the criteria the committee uses to send nominations
to the Senate floor for full consideration. The Senate Judiciary
Committee becomes an opportunity to frame the debate before the entire
Senate begins to address the issue. This analysis does not address
specific nominations and the arguments for or against nomination.
Instead, this paper looks at how the political and legal landscape
affects the criteria Senators use to advise and consent on Circuit
Court nominees.

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Content analysis of network television and New York Times news coverage of recent Supreme Court nominees reveals an increasing media-oriented “campaign” to support or undermine a nominee. The media strategies are most pronounced for controversial nominees, who receive the largest amount of news coverage, and the most negative media treatment overall. But the nomination struggles nevertheless have different coverage dynamics than electoral campaigns.

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
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: We develop a model to explain Senate roll call confirmation decisions for individual senators for the entire universe of such voting from 1977 through 1996. We move beyond prior studies that have only looked at one set of offices at a time (typically, Supreme Court nominations). Our theoretical framework assumes senators as strategic actors operating within the confirmation context where many senators, due to partisan and ideological predisposition, must necessarily reconcile two primary sets of conflicting influences: adherence to a norm of deference towards the appointing president and advancement of their own agendas. Conventional wisdom posits that this norm of deference towards the appointing president’s choices dominates and that senators therefore are generally willing to yield to the White House’s wants. This study finds that the reality in such roll calls is more politically contingent and nuanced than what this accepted view advances. Our findings indicate that in addition to the typical influences that explain congressional roll call voting – political party affiliation and ideological orientation of the voting member – there are other important variables unique to the confirmation context: the grounds of opposition leveled against a nominee, the characteristics of the office a nominee is appointed to, the ideological distance between a senator and the appointing president, and the political strength of the appointing president.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Ideology is viewed by most scholars as a powerful determinant of political behavior, especially the voting of US Senators. While ideology is certainly a factor that influences a Senator’s vote, it should not be viewed as an unconditional factor in determining a Senator’s actions. The specific theory developed in this paper examines Senators’ votes on confirmation of Supreme Court nominees and helps to shed light on the conditional nature of ideology’s influence on confirmation votes. The results indicate that certain political environmental factors greatly impact ideology’s influence on a Senator’s voting behavior. The political environmental factors include the party of the President in relation to the Senator’s party, the popularity of the President, the type of nomination (chief or associate justice), the previous justice’s ideology in relation to the nominee’s ideology, and specific characteristics of the nominee (qualifications, age, and experience). The interaction between these political environmental factors and political ideology is significant; demonstrating that ideology’s influence on a Senator’s voting behavior is dependent on the type of political environment within which ideology operates.