Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process
نویسندگان
چکیده
The Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process has become one of the most contentious aspects of American politics in recent years, representing a seismic struggle between the president and the U.S. Senate over the ideological makeup of the nation’s highest court. Existing research focuses on how the ideological compatibility of the president and the Senate affects the ideology of the president’s nominees. However, little work addresses whether presidents can overcome an ideologically hostile Senate by spending political capital to support a nominee. As such, we examine the president’s public expenditure of capital to obtain confirmation for Supreme Court nominees facing a Senate that is reticent to confirm. By content analyzing public statements made by presidents during confirmation battles we find strong support for the hypothesis that presidents strategically “go public.” Further, this strategy has a marked influence on presidents’ ability to win confirmation for their most important nominees.
منابع مشابه
Cognitive Mapping of the Human Capital of the Auditors of Supreme Audit Court
The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the components of human capital and discovering the relationships between them for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court. Thus, after identifying the dimensions of human capital at the individual level, the components of human capital for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court were extracted using content analysis of semi-structured i...
متن کاملSupreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan: Presidential Authority and the Separation of Powers
In light of Elena Kagan's nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, this report analyzes then-Professor Kagan's views of executive power and the doctrine of separation of powers as laid most extensively out in her 2001 Harvard Law Review article Presidential Administration. This report will proceed as follows. First, it will briefly describe the constitutio...
متن کاملMissouri overrules the United States Supreme Court on capital punishment for minors.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause does not shield minors 16 or 17 years of age from the death penalty. Holding, astonishingly, that Stanford is no longer the law of the land, the Missouri Supreme Court recently reversed the death sentence of a 17-year-old murderer in Simmons v. Roper. The U.S. Suprem...
متن کاملOregon Supreme Court Ruling Prohibits Hospital from Refusing a Sell Order.
In a recent decision involving a capital murder case, Oregon State Hospital v. Butts, the Oregon Supreme Court conducted a mandamus hearing to ascertain whether Oregon State Hospital (OSH) had a legal duty to comply with a Sell order from a county trial court to provide antipsychotic medications to an incompetent defendant, despite its belief, as an institution, that medication was not clinical...
متن کاملConfirmation Bias in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database
We ask whether the widely used direction of decision and direction of vote variables in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database (USSCJD) are contaminated by confirmation bias, or have been affected by expectations about the likely effects of judicial preferences on case outcomes. Using a sample of generally comparable cases, we find evidence that the assignment of issue codes to these...
متن کامل