Lisa M. Holmes

The Increasing Senate Scrutiny of Lower Federal Court Nominees

We argue that the scrutiny of lower federal court nominations in the Senate is not unique to the crisis during the Clinton administration or during the tenure of Orrin Hatch as Judiciary Committee chair. Instead, increased scrutiny of lower court nominees has been a long time in the making. Lower court nominations became more contentious during the Carter administration, increased further late in Reagans second term, and reached a zenith after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. We employ data that examines the delay of nomination from 1969 until 1998. We examine delay pre and post Carter and pre and post the time Senator Orin Hatch served as judiciary chair. We also examine the impact of unified and divided government on these appointments.

Presidential Strategy in the Judicial Appointment Process “Going Public” in Support of Nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals

I examine presidential use of public appeals on behalf of nominees to the U.S. courts of appeals from 1977 to 2005. Presidents Clinton and W. Bush have utilized this strategy far more regularly than did their predecessors. I find that presidents go public more often and more quickly on behalf of nominees facing a difficult confirmation climate, as well as on behalf of those who would diversify the bench. However, nominees who received more presidential support were not more likely to be confirmed by the Senate and appeared to be less likely to be confirmed. These findings indicate an important shift in presidential strategy concerning appointments to the courts of appeals in the newly politicized confirmation climate. These findings also provide evidence that presidents may be motivated by factors beyond confirmation success when determining how to expend public support on behalf of individuals nominated to these important courts.

Lower Federal Court Judicial Confirmation Fights: A Critical Review of the Empirical Literature and Future Research Directions

A lot has been written over the years about U.S. Supreme Court confirmation battles, but the literature on lower federal court confirmation fights is relatively less bountiful. However, in recent years, scholars have increasingly focused on the lower court confirmation process. A review of the recent literature reveals that there are more survey reports, law review articles, and opinion pieces than more complex quantitative analyses of lower court confirmation fights. Moreover, research results generated by the literature are widely divergent and, at times, inconsistent.Given that we are now approximately twenty years into the period of heightened interest in quantitative analyses of the confirmation process, it is useful to take stock of the state of political science literature in this area, and to highlight where scholarly interest appears to be going in the near future. A contemporary assessment of the state of the field should be of interest and use to scholars of American politics generally, due to the relevance of all three branches in selecting lower court judges. Here, we dissect the recent empirical literature and offer suggestions for future research. Most significantly, we offer a one-stop shop for scholars to have a comprehensive understanding of the current literature.