Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/de-gruyter/conscientiousness-and-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-in-the-NPB98xY7Cw
References (21)
-
L. Ross, R. Nisbett (1991)
The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology -
(2010)
See Jeffery J. -
N. Totenberg (1988)
The Confirmation Process and the Public: To Know or Not to KnowHarvard Law Review, 101
-
(2020)
A lopsided Supreme Court harms the country and its own legitimacy -
(2018)
Brett Kavanaugh’s handwriting reveals he’s paranoid and irritable—expert says -
C. Boyd, P. Collins, Lori Ringhand (2018)
The Role of Nominee Gender and Race at U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation HearingsLaw & Society Review
-
Frank Guliuzza, Daniel Reagan, David Barrett (1994)
The Senate Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court Nominees: Measuring the Dynamics of Confirmation CriteriaThe Journal of Politics, 56
-
Leslie Papke, J. Wooldridge (1993)
Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation RatesNBER Working Paper Series
-
(2013)
Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change -
importance is party polarization -
R. McCrae, P. Costa (2005)
Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective -
L. Witt, L. Burke, Murray Barrick, M. Mount (2002)
The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance.The Journal of applied psychology, 87 1
-
L. Epstein, Rene Lindstaedt, J. Segal, Chad Westerland (2006)
The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court NomineesThe Journal of Politics, 68
-
Philip Chen, A. Bryan (2017)
Judging the “Vapid and Hollow Charade”: Citizen Evaluations and the Candor of U.S. Supreme Court NomineesPolitical Behavior, 40
-
S. Carter (1988)
The Confirmation MessHarvard Law Review, 101
-
J. Guzmán (2013)
Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using StataPuerto Rico Health Sciences Journal, 21
-
other aspects of personality, such as motives -
(2018)
Justice Scalia’s Confirmation Hearing Legacy -
J. Rosen (2007)
The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America -
(2009)
See Denis Steven Rutkus & Maureen Bearden, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789-2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, -
Justin Wedeking, Dion Farganis (2016)
The Candor Factor: Does Nominee Evasiveness Affect Judiciary Committee Support for Supreme Court Nominees?Hofstra Law Review, 39
- Publisher
- de Gruyter
- Copyright
- © 2021 Ryan C. Black et al., published by Sciendo
- ISSN
- 2049-4092
- eISSN
- 2719-5864
- DOI
- 10.2478/bjals-2021-0011
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
AbstractThis article examines how one personality trait of U.S. Supreme Court nominees influences the confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the article asks, are conscientious nominees more forthcoming when they answer Committee Members’ questions? And, second, are Committee Members, in turn, more or less likely to vote favorably for conscientious nominees? The paper builds a theory of how the conscientiousness trait shapes how nominees to the High Court interact with the Senate Judiciary Committee. To test our theory and answer the questions, we use confirmation hearing data starting from 1955 and extending through 2018, which includes both the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh hearings. We find that personality shapes interactions in the Senate judiciary committee in important and meaningful ways. Importantly, we find evidence that suggests a nominee's conscientiousness helps to explain why some Senators would be willing to vote for him or her even when that nominee might be less qualified.
Journal
British Journal of American Legal Studies – de Gruyter
Published: Dec 1, 2021
Keywords: Senate Judiciary Committee; personality; conscientiousness; Confirmation Hearings; Nominee qualifications