The Confirmation Obstacle Course: Signaling Opposition through Delay

Abstract

<jats:p>We examine the time required for lower federal court nominees to complete the confirmation process. Using proportional hazards models, we analyze delay at the Judiciary Committee stage and the full Senate vote stage from 1977 to 2010, finding that delay has been used by members of the committee and the full Senate to signal opposition to nominees. Delay at the committee stage has influenced delay on the Senate floor for circuit and district court nominees, at least in the years since Robert Bork’s failed nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our findings indicate that senators pick up on committee delay as a cue in the confirmation process. Examining the distinct stages of the confirmation process provides important new insights into legislative signaling behavior and confirmation politics.</jats:p>

Lower Federal Court Judicial Confirmation Fights: A Critical Review of the Empirical Literature and Future Research Directions

“…Notwithstanding these results, largely missing from the most influential or even the larger list, with a notable exception of a few recent studies (Epstein and Segal 2005; Holmes, Shomade, and Hartley 2012; Martinek, Kemper, and Van Winkle 2002; Steigerwalt 2010), are specific studies of the different phases of the Senate confirmation process, or better understanding of the relevance of key events such as Robert Bork's unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination or the Gang of 14's efforts to avoid the “nuclear option” in 2005. In addition, we lack a particular methodology that comprehensively captures many of the significant findings together in one study.…”

“…The increased attention to lower court nominees over the years and the increased research on the treatment of these nominations require a critical review of the empirical literature and efforts to understand the divergence or inconsistency sometimes produced by this literature. Building on recent research regarding delay in confirmation of lower federal court judges (e.g., Holmes, Shomade, and Hartley 2012; Primo, Binder, and Maltzman 2008; Scherer, Bartels, and Steigerwalt 2008), we review the recent empirical literature and offer suggestions for future research. Most significantly, we offer a one-stop shop of sorts for scholars of American politics to gain a comprehensive understanding of the recent literature.…”