The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Abstract

US Supreme Court confirmation hearings provide senators with an opportunity to engage a potential justice on a nationwide stage. Senators probe for information about future behavior on the bench. Nominees work through the questions, oscillating between forthcoming and vague responses. Such behavior encourages popular narratives that characterize this intricate dance as a “vapid and hollow charade.” We challenge this wisdom and argue that senators use these hearings to provide meaningful representation to their constituents while simultaneously supporting copartisan efforts regarding the nominee. We examine the exchanges in 185 senator-nominee pairings that span nearly 30 years of confirmation hearings. Our results show that senators from both parties increase their question-asking activity during divided government, when confirmation success is more dubious. Senators from the president’s party ask fewer questions when their constituents support the nominee, however, suggesting that popular support can attenuate this general effect for senators expecting a successful confirmation.

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

“…A similar phenomenon may have occurred with the Supreme Court. Consider volatile confirmation hearings (Cameron et al, 2013; Collins & Ringhand, 2016; Schoenherr et al, 2020), and media coverage that (A) increasingly treats the Court like the elected branches (Hitt & Searles, 2018; Fogarty et al, 2020) and (B) prefers to cover dissensus over collegiality (Bryan & Ringsmuth, 2016; Denison et al, 2020). Also, recall recent hearings that include the use of the so-called “nuclear option,” and McConnell’s about-face on whether nominations should occur during presidential election years.…”

“…Margins of victory were once large and bipartisan, but now fall along party lines. The way senators interact with nominees is now predicated on partisanship (Boyd et al, 2018; Schoenherr et al, 2020). There is some evidence that recent nomination battles have weakened and polarized mass support for the judiciary (Carrington & French, Forthcoming; Krewson & Schroedel, 2020).…”

Motivated Reasoning and Attitudes Towards Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Evidence from Five Nominations and an Experiment

“…This approach is not limited to the Gorsuch confirmation hearing. Research has shown that opposition-party Senators asks more political and ideological questions of nominees than co-partisan Senators who tend to ask questions about qualifications and experience (Farganis and Wedeking 2014, 2011; Schoenherr, Lane and Armaly 2018). 5…”

Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court

“…On one side of this debate are those who find little value in the hearings and the potential for great harm to the Supreme Court's essential store of legitimacy (Kagan 1995; Zilis and Blandau 2021). On the other side are those who see the hearings as providing important public goods: during hearings senators represent constituent interests (Schoenherr, Lane, and Armaly 2020) and participants “engage in a debate about the meaning of the Constitution” (Collins and Ringhand 2013, 1). Carrington and French enter the discussion in a unique way, by arguing that the behavior of a nominee (rather than the partisan and political nature of a modern judicial confirmation hearing) harmed the Supreme Court's legitimacy.…”