The Confirmation Obstacle Course: Signaling Opposition through Delay

Authors

  • Lisa M. Holmes
  • Salmon A. Shomade
  • Roger E. Hartley

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2012.33.0.23-49

Abstract

We examine the time required for lower federal court nominees to complete the confirmation process. Using proportional hazards models, we analyze delay at the Judiciary Committee stage and the full Senate vote stage from 1977 to 2010, finding that delay has been used by members of the committee and the full Senate to signal opposition to nominees. Delay at the committee stage has influenced delay on the Senate floor for circuit and district court nominees, at least in the years since Robert Bork’s failed nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our findings indicate that senators pick up on committee delay as a cue in the confirmation process. Examining the distinct stages of the confirmation process provides important new insights into legislative signaling behavior and confirmation politics.

References

Allison, Garland W. 1996. Delay in the Senate Confirmation of Federal Cour Nominees. Judicature 80:8-15.

Basinger, Scott, and Maxwell Mak. 2010. The Changing Politics of Federal Judicial Nominations. Congress and the Presidency 37:157-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07343460903394226

Bell, Lauren Cohen. 2002a. Warring Factions: Interest Groups, Money, and the New Politics of Senate Confirmation. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

Bell, Lauren Cohen. 2002b. Senatorial Discourtesy: The Senate's Use of Delay to Shape the Federal Judiciary. Political Research Quarterly 55:589-607. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290205500305

Binder, Sarah A. 1999. The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947-1996. American Political Science Review 93:519-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585572

Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. 2002. Senatorial Delay in Confirming Judges, 1947-1998. American Journal of Political Science 46:190-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088422

Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. 2004. The Limits of Senatorial Courtesy. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29:5-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.3162/036298004X201078

Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. 2009. Advice and Dissent: The Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Bradford S. Jones. 2004. Event History Modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790874

Carp, Robert A., Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning. 2004. Judicial Process in America, 6th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Chase, Harold. 1972. Federal Judges: The Appointing Process. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2005. Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments. New York: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, Lee, Rene Lindstadt, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2006. The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees. Journal of Politics 68:296-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00407.x

Ferejohn, John A., and Charles R. Shipan. 1989. Congressional Influence on Administrative Agencies: A Case Study of Telecommunications Policy. In Congress Reconsidered, 4th ed., eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Goldman, Sheldon. 1997. Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection from Roosevelt Through Reagan. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Goldman, Sheldon. 2003. Assessing the Senate Judicial Confirmation Process: The Index of Obstruction and Delay. Judicature 86:251-257.

Goldman, Sheldon, and Elliot Slotnick. 1999. Clinton's Second Term Judiciary: Picking Judges under Fire. Judicature 82:264-283.

Goldman, Sheldon, Elliot Slotnick, Gerard Gryski, and Sara Schiavoni. 2005. W. Bush's Judiciary: The First Term Record. Judicature 88:244-275.

Goldman, Sheldon, Elliot Slotnick, and Sara Schiavoni. 2011. Obama's Judiciary at Midterm: The Confirmation Drama Continues. Judicature 94:262-303.

Hartley, Roger E. 2001. Senate Delay of Minority Judicial Nominees: A Look at Race, Gender, and Experience. Judicature 84:190-197.

Hartley, Roger E., and Lisa M. Holmes. 1997. Increasing Senate Scrutiny of Lower Federal Court Nominees. Judicature 80:274-78.

Hartley, Roger E., and Lisa M. Holmes. 2002. The Increasing Scrutiny of Lower Federal Court Nominees. Political Science Quarterly 117:259-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/798183

Holmes, Lisa M. 2007. Presidential Strategy in the Judicial Appointment Process: 'Going Public' in Support of Nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Politics Research 35:567-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X07301807

Holmes, Lisa M., and Elisha Savchak. 2003. Judicial Appointment Politics in the 107th Congress. Judicature 86:232-239.

Johnson, Timothy R., and Jason M. Roberts. 2004. Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process. The Journal of Politics 66:663-683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00271.x

Johnson, Timothy R., and Jason M. Roberts. 2005. Pivotal Politics, Presidential Capital, and Supreme Court Nominations. Congress and the Presidency 32:31-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07343460509507695

Kingdon, John. 1973. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper and Row. Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226452739.001.0001

Martinek, Wendy L., Mark Kemper, and Steven R. Van Winkle. 2002. To Advise and Consent: The Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations, 1977-2002. Journal of Politics 64:337-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00129

Massie, Tajuana, Thomas G. Hansford, and Donald R. Songer. 2004. The Timing of Presidential Nominees to the Lower Federal Courts. Political Research Quarterly 57:145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3219841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700112

Moraski, Bryon J., and Charles R. Shipan. 1999. The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices. American Journal of Political Science 43:1069-1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991818

Morrow, William L. 1969. Congressional Committees. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Nixon, David C., and David L. Goss. 2001. Confirmation Delay for Vacancies on the Circuit Courts of Appeals. American Politics Research 29:246-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01293002

Poole, Keith, and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.

Primo, David M., Sarah A. Binder, and Forrest Maltsman. 2008. Who Consents? Competing Pivots in Federal Judicial Selection. American Journal of Political Science 52:471-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00324.x

Ruckman, P.S. 1993. The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate Confirmation Process. Journal of Politics 55:793-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2132002

Scherer, Nancy. 2005. Scoring Points: Politicians, Activists, and the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Scherer, Nancy, Brandon L. Bartels, and Amy Steigerwalt. 2008. Sounding the Fire Alarm: The Role of Interest Groups in the Lower Federal Court Confirmation Process. The Journal of Politics 70:1026-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608081036

Shipan, Charles, and Megan L. Shannon. 2003. Delaying Justice(s): A Duration Analysis of Supreme Court Confirmations. American Journal of Political Science 47:654-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00046

Slotnick, Elliot E., and Sheldon Goldman. 1998. Congress and the Courts: A Case of Casting. In Great Theatre: The American Congress in the 1990s, eds. Herbert F. Weisberg and Samuel C. Patterson. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sollenberger, Mitchel A. 2010. The Blue Slip: A Theory of Unified and Divided Government, 1979-2009. Congress and the Presidency 37:125-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07343460903394218

Solowiej, Lisa A., Wendy L. Martinek, and Thomas L. Brunnell. 2005. Partisan Politics: The Impact of Party in the Confirmation of Minority and Female Federal Court Nominees. Party Politics 11:557-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068805054980

Stratmann, Thomas, and Jared Garner. 2004. Judicial Selection: Politics, Biases, and Constituency Demands. Public Choice 118:251-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PUCH.0000019906.11742.f8

Downloads

Published

2012-04-01

Issue

Vol. 33: Spring 2012

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.