The Role of Qualifications in the Confirmation of Nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court
Lee Epstein, Jeffrey A. Segal, Nancy Staudt, and René Lindstädt

Florida State University Law Review 32 (4): 1145-1173 (2005)
Click here for the article
Click here for the data

Abstract
In light of concerns that politics, philosophy, and ideology now dominate the federal judicial appointment process—a process that many claim should emphasize ethics, competence, and integrity—scholars have offered a range of proposals. A considerable number, though, aim to compel elected actors to focus on the candidates' qualifications rather than on their political preferences.

Without taking a normative position on these sorts of proposals, we demonstrate empirically that the process leading to the appointment of (at least) Supreme Court justices may not be the "mess" that the proposals suggest. While it is true that U.S. Senators are more likely to cast votes for nominees who are ideologically proximate to them, it is also the case that the nominees' qualifications play a significant role in accounting for the choices Senators make.

Click on the titles below for the web sites of related projects:

• The New Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees

• On Tournaments for Appointing Great Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court
  Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments

keywords: Supreme Court confirmations, judicial qualifications, Senate voting behavior, judicial appointments, political influence, ideological factors, confirmation process, evolving qualifications, judicial selection, U.S. Supreme Court nominations