Public Attitudes toward Obstruction of Supreme Court Nominees

• In Event: Judicial Selection and Appointments

Abstract

Despite increased political attention to instances of legislative obstruction in recent years, little is known about the public's attitudes toward these procedural techniques. I evaluate these attitudes in the context of recent nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Evidence from two nationally representative surveys reveals an overriding political dimension to Americans' attitudes over the use of tactics to obstruct Supreme Court nominations. The president's co-partisans express considerably higher levels of opposition to delayed consideration of a Supreme Court nominee than individuals politically opposed to the president. Further evidence shows that these attitudes vary depending on the magnitude of the obstruction under consideration. Individuals of all political stripes -- including the president's opponents -- are less supportive of the use of severe forms of obstruction, such as refusing to hold hearings for a nominee, than more established methods, like the filibuster. A final analysis provides evidence that these attitudes have electoral consequences, as supporters [opponents] of obstruction reward [punish] the obstructing party at the ballot box. These findings reveal that the American public has internalized the political stakes of Supreme Court nominations and show that Senators may have electoral incentives to employ obstructionist tactics in an era of extreme polarization.

Author

• Andrew R Stone, Harvard University