Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: Legal Theory BlogRinghand & Collins on an Empirical Study of Senate Judiciary Hearings of Supreme Court Nominees
By Lawrence Solum
Lori A. Ringhand and Paul M. Collins Jr. (University of Georgia School of Law and University of North Texas) have posted May it Please the Senate: An Empirical Analysis of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009 on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
-
This paper examines the questions asked and answers given by every Supreme Court nominee who has appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1939. In doing so, it uses a new dataset developed by the authors. This database, which provides a much-needed empirical foundation for scholarship in emerging areas of constitutional law and political science, captures all of the statements made at the hearings and codes these comments by issue area, subissue area, party of the appointing president, and party of the questioning senator. The dataset allows us to quantify for the fist time such things as which issues are most frequently discussed at the hearings, whether those issues have changed over time, and whether they vary depending on the party of the appointing president and the party of the questioning senator. We also investigate if questioning patterns differ depending on the race or gender of the nominee. Some of our results are unsurprising: for example, the hearings have become longer. Others, however, challenge conventional wisdom: the Bork hearing is less of an outlier in several ways than is frequently assumed, and abortion has not dominated the hearings. We also discover that there is issue area variation over time, and that there are notable disparities in the issues addressed by Democratic versus Republican senators. Finally, we find that female and minority nominees face a significantly different hearing environment than do white male nominees.
And here is a New York Times story discussing the paper. Highly recommended. Download it while its hot!
Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on June 28, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Collins GA
Elementary School Children May Have Been Exposed to Asbestos
Sharon Collins
found guilty of conspiring to kill her partner
Procrit
Associated with Death in Stroke Study
Xigris
Study Prompts FDA Safety Review
BPA
New Study Shows Link to Diabetes and Heart Disease
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million

A new study of Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Supreme Court Nomineees
Vapid and Hollow or Substantive and Illuminating
"An Empirical Analysis of the Confirmation Hearings of the Justices of the Rehnquist Natural Court"
"I'm Sorry, I Can't Answer That"
Supreme Court hearings: Vapid and hollow or substantive and illuminating









