No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominee Candor from Harlan to Kagan

Law & Society Review, Volume 45, Number 3 (2011)

35 Pages Posted: 1 May 2016

See all articles by Dion Farganis

Dion Farganis

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - School of Law

Justin Wedeking

University of Kentucky - Department of Political Science

Date Written: April 28, 2016

Abstract

Criticism of Supreme Court confirmation hearings has intensified consider- ably over the past two decades. In particular, there is a growing sense that nominees are now less forthcoming and that the hearings have suffered as a result. In this article, we challenge that conventional wisdom. Based on a comprehensive content analysis of every question and answer in all of the modern confirmation hearings — nearly 11,000 in total — we find only a mild decline in the candor of recent nominees. Moreover, we find that senators ask more probing questions than in the past, and that nominees are now more explicit about their reasons when they choose not to respond — two factors that may be fueling the perception that evasiveness has increased in recent years. We close with a discussion of the normative implications of our findings as well as an outline for future research into this issue.

Suggested Citation

Farganis, Dion and Wedeking, Justin, No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominee Candor from Harlan to Kagan (April 28, 2016). Law & Society Review, Volume 45, Number 3 (2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2772337

Dion Farganis (Contact Author)

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - School of Law ( email )

229-19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States

Justin Wedeking

University of Kentucky - Department of Political Science ( email )

1615 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
11
Abstract Views
102
PlumX Metrics