Collaborative Research on Organized Group Influence on Federal Judicial Nominations

在20世纪80年代，利益集团扩大了游说活动， 代表或反对联邦司法机构的努力 提名。 随着联邦司法部门变得更加平等 沿着意识形态的路线分裂，有组织的利益冲突 在参议院司法委员会和参议院的地板上。 动员的程度和强度都非常高， 参与辩论的利益团体数量 提名博尔克法官为最高法院大法官 法院和其他不太明显的任命表明了一种新的风格 司法提名政治：有组织的利益集团 被激活来影响司法提名，他们证明， 承诺继续这样做。 然而，很难 隔离并追踪利益集团可能产生的影响 这样的战斗。 关于为什么、是否、如何以及 利益集团在什么情况下影响司法 提名过程。 该项目将是第一个深入的定量分析， 利益集团游说美国参议院对联邦司法 提名。 来自数百个团体和联盟的个人 在国家、州和地方各级， 这些比赛将被确定并接受采访。 问题 将重点关注相关游说努力等问题， 致力于不同的参议员，使用不同的战术 (e.g.,直邮、媒体广告），活动规模 每个国家的成员资格，组织内的决定， 参加特定提名或加入联盟，以及 有组织的利益集团之间的沟通模式。 的 研究的目的是（1）评估 就参议员的决定组织游说活动， 支持或反对有争议的联邦提名 （2）确定有组织团体如何分配其 在各州和参议员之间游说资源，以及（3）开发 并测试一个组织决策的模型， 司法提名战 这项研究将为动员提供新的见解， 集体行动战略和有组织利益的影响 在一个明确而明确的立法过程中。 研究 应该有助于发展一个统一的理论， 各种政治和法律的 竞技场 因为司法确认处于 立法和司法决策，研究还应 增加了我们对有组织的利益集团的能力的理解， 影响法院的人事，从而影响未来的解释 宪法、法律和行政法规。

During the 1980s, interest groups have expanded their lobbying efforts on behalf of or in opposition to federal judicial nominations. As the federal judiciary has become more evenly divided along ideological lines, organized interests have clashed in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The extraordinary degree of mobilization and the intensity and numbers of interest groups involved in the debate over the nomination of Judge Bork as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and of other less visible appointments suggest a new style of judicial nominating politics: Organized interest groups are activated to influence judicial nominations, and they demonstrate a commitment to continue to do so. It is difficult, however, to isolate and trace the influence that interest groups might have on such battles. Little is known about why, whether, how, and under what circumstances interest groups affect the judicial nomination process. This project will be the first in-depth quantitative analysis of interest group lobbying of the U.S. Senate on federal judicial nominations. Individuals from hundreds of groups and coalitions at the national, state, and local levels that participated in these contests will be identified and interviewed. Questions will focus on such issues as the relative lobbying efforts devoted to different senators, the use of different tactics (e.g., direct mail, media advertising), the size of active membership in each state, the decision within an organization to take part in a particular nomination or join a coalition, and patterns of communication among organized interests. The objectives of the study are to (1) assess the impact of organized lobbying efforts on the decisions of senators to support or oppose controversial nominations to the federal judiciary, (2) determine how organized groups allocate their lobbying resources across states and senators, and (3) develop and test a model of organizational decisions to participate in judicial nomination battles. This research will provide new insights into the mobilization, collective action strategies, and impact of organized interests in a specific and well-defined legislative process. The study should aid in the development of a unified theory of how interest groups maneuver into and out of the various political and legal arenas. Because judicial confirmation is at the intersection of legislative and judicial policymaking, the research should also add to our understanding of the ability of organized interests to shape the personnel of the Court and thus future interpretations of the Constitution, statutes, and administrative regulations.