How can the approval of judges (judicial nominees) to the U.S. Supreme Court affect American politics?

Abstract

The new nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court are inevitably and inevitably political. While observers fear that political disputes over candidates undermine qualified candidates' support and threaten the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The author argues that the judicial candidates' political struggles provide signals that shape public opinion about the candidates and the Court and polarize public opinion along party lines. Data from a joint experiment conducted in the early days of the Trump presidency supports this argument. The political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats has significantly polarized partisan views on the candidates and assessments of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans (Democrats) expressing significantly more (less) favorable attitudes. Additional analyses show that the challenge generates various partisan reactions that affect the candidate's impartiality opinion. These findings challenge existing views that portray the judiciary's attitude as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era. Keywords: joint experiment, judicial legitimacy, judicial nominations, polarization, public opinion, and the courts.