LET'S TALK: Judicial Decisions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

By Batta, Anna; Collins, Paul M. et al. | Judicature, July/August 2012 | Go to article overview

LET'S TALK: Judicial Decisions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings


Batta, Anna, Collins, Paul M., Miles, Tom, Ringhand, Lori A., Judicature


An investigation of Supreme Court confirmation hearings reveals many queries posed to nominees reference specific court cases, especialiy recent decisions, and with questioning often divided along partisan lines. These findings indicate that the hearings are more substantive than is commonly assumed.

As part of the checks and balances that are a hallmark of the American political system, presidential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court must be confirmed by the Senate. To facilitate its role of providing the president with advice and consent, in 1816 the Senate created the Committee on the Judiciary. In 1939, Felix Frankfurter became the first Supreme Court nominee to take unrestricted questions from members of the Judiciary Committee in a public hearing. While nominees appointed immediately after Frankfurter testified before the Committee only sporadically, in 1955 nominee testimony became the norm. Since the appointment of John Harlan, all appointees whose nominations were officially submitted to the Senate have appeared before the Judiciary Committee.'

While Senate Judiciary Committee hearings have the potential to provide both a check on the president's appointment authority and a means to hold potential justices democratically accountable, the hearings are routinely criticized as being devoid of any real substantive content.2 Despite the fact that this sentiment has seemed to reach the status of conventional wisdom, there has been very little systematic research on the content of the hearings themselves.3 Consequently, with few exceptions, our understanding of the substance of the hearings is primarily based on anecdotal accounts of hearing testimony, rather than the rigorous analysis of what actually transpires at the hearings.

To remedy this state of affairs, we investigate one particularly important aspect of the hearings: the extent to which hearing dialogue is motivated by the discussion of judicial decisions. In so doing, we address a series of interrelated questions: How much hearing testimony is devoted to the treatment of judicial decisions? Do senators or nominees address judicial decisions more frequently? Which court's decisions are most commonly debated? How old are the court cases scrutinized at the hearings? Which issue areas provoke discussion of precedent? Do these issue areas vary depending on the political party of the senator interrogating the nominee?

Understanding the discussion of judicial decisions at Supreme Court confirmation hearings is important for several reasons. First, at the most basic level, this analysis provides insight into whether any generalized claims can be made about the confirmation process.4 By demonstrating that a substantial portion of hearing dialogue involves the concrete discussion of judicial decisions, this research contributes to the view that the confirmation process is a core part of our governing system. As such, this work speaks directly to the question of whether the hearings have substantive content independent of opportunities for senators to score political points by probing the idiosyncrasies of individual nominees, such as asking abstract and relatively meaningless questions about their preferred methods of constitutional interpretation. Second, because respect for precedent is a cornerstone of the American common law system, investigating the treatment of judicial decisions at the confirmation hearings provides a window into how constitutional change is driven by a common-law methodology, illustrating the importance nominees and senators attach to the acceptance (or rejection) of existing case law. Because nominees are rarely willing to violate the norm of not forecasting their positions on legal disputes they might encounter, should they be confirmed to the Court,5 taking the confirmation process seriously requires examining what nominees are willing to say about previously decided constitutional cases. By interrogating nominees on past decisions, senators are provided insight into the nominees' positions on prominent legal issues without pressing them to divulge how they might rule on future disputes. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

LET'S TALK: Judicial Decisions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.