Assessing the Consequences of Politicized Confirmation Processes

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

AbstractAlthough scholars have devoted a considerable amount of effort toward understanding public attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court, almost all earlier research has been static in nature. This is unfortunate, since there can be little doubt that major exogenous events can have an enduring impact on public opinion.One such major exogenous event is a contentious confirmation process for nominees to the United States Supreme Court. And one such attitude of interest has to do with the legitimacy citizens ascribe to the Court. Thus, the purpose of this project is to examine the impact of confirmation processes on the willingness of the American people to extend institutional legitimacy to the United States Supreme Court. This project takes advantage of the historical rarity of three Supreme Court nominations taking place essentially simultaneously. With the death of William Rehnquist, the Roberts nomination for the position of Associate Justice was withdrawn and resubmitted for the position of Chief Justice. President Bush then nominated Harriet Miers, to replace Justice OConnor but that nomination was withdrawn. The President has nominated Samuel Alito for OConnors seat. All these nominations have become more controversial as a result of (1) the shift to the chief justice in the case of Roberts, (2) questions about low qualification in the case of Miers and (3) OConnors centrist position on most issues compared to Alito, who is viewed as more ideological. Thus the American people are being exposed to an eye-catching level of conflict over not just the nominees, but also the role of the Supreme Court in American politics. During earlier confirmation fights, scholars have indeed examined public opinion. But no such earlier research has had in place a survey conducted prior to the confirmation process that might stand as a baseline for an analysis of change in perceived legitimacy. Fortunately, a national survey we conducted in the summer of 2005 did indeed address the Courts legitimacy. This face-to-face nationally representative sample can be mobilized in a three-wave panel designed to provide rigorous estimates of the nature of the impact of politicized confirmation processes on public attitudes. That is precisely the research design of this project.Intellectual Merit. Legitimacy theory is one of the most important theories we have for understanding the role of courts in democratic societies. The theory asserts that courts are especially dependent upon legitimacy for their effectiveness (since they have neither the power of the purse nor the sword). But legitimacy is fragile, and its origins are poorly understood. Current theorizing posits a positive bias, which means that increased attentiveness to courts (for whatever reason) results in greater exposure to powerful symbols of judicial legitimacy. But what if increased attention to courts results in exposure to attacks on court nominees impugning their impartiality? Undoubtedly, little positivity can be found in such ads. Highly politicized nomination processes (themselves perhaps a reflection of deep ideological divisions in American politics) provide a propitious context for further development of theories of the origins of judicial legitimacy.Broader Impact. One element of the project is to establish a research approach that can be utilized to study important events as they unfold in politics. Research designs are overwhelmingly reactive, and as such, have limited ability to deal with processes of change. This research will stand as a model for how existing surveys can be exploited in the context of unfolding events to allow studies of the impact of those events on public opinion.