Political Hearings Reinforce Legal Norms: Confirmation Hearings and Views of the United States Supreme Court

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221094877
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221094877

Political Research Quarterly

© 2022 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129221094877

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

How do modern judicial confirmation hearings influence

public views of the Supreme Court?1 The political nature

of the appointment process has led some to believe that

judicial confirmation hearings fundamentally alter peo-

ple’s perceptions of the Court, leading them to treat it

simply as another political body of government. With a

few limited exceptions, however, empirical research on

the consequences of modern judicial confirmation hear-

ings is lacking. We know little about whether confirma-

tion hearings damage the Supreme Court’s essential

reservoir of goodwill and the extent to which they lead

the public to treat the judicial branch like any other politi-

cal branch of government. Meanwhile, the politics sur-

rounding the confirmation process grow in intensity and

regularity. With much at stake, it is essential to test claims

regarding the costs and benefits of judicial confirmation

hearings empirically.

Consistent with work on positivity bias theory (e.g.,

Gibson and Caldeira 2009a), I argue that the politics satu-

rating modern judicial confirmation hearings harm the

Court’s legitimacy. That is because language and events

that associate the Court with regular politics (i.e.,

political symbolism) can undermine or even overwhelm

the legal symbols which typically protect the Court’s

perceived legitimacy (Gibson and Caldeira 2011).

Furthermore, I argue that the negative effect of political

symbolism on perceived legitimacy is filtered through

partisanship. While Democratic elites attacked the Court

as political during Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation

hearings (and co-partisan respondents were easily per-

suaded), Republican elites claimed that these attacks

were baseless, and that the Court continues to function as

a legal institution. Invoking legal symbolism to describe

the Court, Republican elites persuaded Republican

respondents to maintain their view of the Court and reject

out-partisan accusations that the Court had been acting

extra-judicially.

0

94877PRQXXX10.1177/10659129221094877Political Research QuarterlyKrewson

2

022

1Department of Political Science, Brigham Young University, Provo,

UT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher N. Krewson, Department of Political Science, Brigham

Young University, 742 KMBL, Provo, UT 84602-0002, USA.

Email: chris_krewson@byu.edu

Political Hearings Reinforce Legal

Norms: Confirmation Hearings and

Views of the United States Supreme

Court

Christopher N. Krewson1

Abstract

Does the political nature of modern judicial confirmation hearings lead the public to think of the Supreme Court as a

political body? Some political actors inevitably attack the institution during a confirmation hearing—which should lead

to a decrease in support for it—but they attack the Court for acting extra-judicially. More generally, confirmation

hearings send the American public an important and universal message: that the Supreme Court at least ought to

be a legal institution. Based on original panel data closely surrounding the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court

nominee Amy Coney Barrett, I find that confirmation hearings lead the public to place greater value on the non-

political characteristics of a judge. While Supreme Court legitimacy reduced among Democrats over the course of the

hearings, all respondents (including Democrats) became more likely to emphasize the importance of the legal qualities

in a judge. For Democrats, the data suggests these two processes (reduced legitimacy and increased emphasis on a

judge’s legal characteristics) worked independently. For Republicans—and consistent with positivity bias theory—

enhanced legitimacy was predicted by a decrease in focus on the political aspects of a judge over the course of the

confirmation hearing.

Keywords

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Supreme Court Legitimacy, Legal Norms

2023, Vol. 76(1) 418–431