How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. T...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of political science 2021-07, Vol.51 (3), p.1251-1269
Main Authors: Rogowski, Jon C., Stone, Andrew R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attitudes
Cues
Garland, Merrick
Hearings & confirmations
Ideology
Impartiality
Impressions
Judges & magistrates
Judicial appointments
Judiciary
Legislatures
Legitimacy
Nominations
Partisanship
Polarization
Political parties
Political science
Presidents
Public opinion
Rhetoric
Supreme courts
Trump, Donald J
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support this argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans’ views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans (Democrats) expressing significantly more (less) favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era.
ISSN:0007-1234
1469-2112
DOI:10.1017/S0007123419000383