Search

This week, the US Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings to confirm D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh for Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court. While there has been much median speculation as to how these hearings might play out, Logan Dancey, Kjersten Nelson and Eve M. Ringsmuth have analyzed Kavanaugh's previous confirmation hearings to provide their own insights. They find that Kavanaugh was asked almost 40 times the median number of questions asked of other nominees – questions that were often far more intensive and in-depth.

While the U.S. Senate is now unable to make use of the filibuster to delay judicial nominees to federal circuit and district courts, they must still undergo a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. New research from Logan Dancey, Kjersten R. Nelson and Eve M. Ringsmuth finds that the political environment is a better predictor of the hearing’s content and questions than the characteristics of the nominee under scrutiny. They write that nominees who face confirmation hearings when the presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties are more likely to face questions on crime, abortion, civil rights and on their judicial philosophy.