Analyzing the Rhetoric of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Courts Pub Date : 2023-03-13 DOI:10.1017/jlc.2023.2
Jake S. Truscott
{"title":"Analyzing the Rhetoric of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings","authors":"Jake S. Truscott","doi":"10.1017/jlc.2023.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Supreme Court confirmation hearings place the often-reclusive institution in the public spotlight and afford members of the Senate Judiciary Committee the ability to pursue important personal and party goals. I construct and evaluate a measure of rhetorical sentiment that considers the positive and negative behaviors of committee members during Supreme Court confirmation hearings between 1971 and 2020. While some observers have pointed to the evolving dynamics of confirmation hearings as being the result of key inflection points, I find that these events alone do not explain rhetorical behaviors. Instead, my results suggest that rhetorical behaviors have been predominately mediated by structures of party control and the balance of interbranch political power since at least the 1970s. I conclude by noting how these behaviors can further deteriorate the public’s perceptions that the Court remains insulated from the contentious political environment.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Courts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2023.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Supreme Court confirmation hearings place the often-reclusive institution in the public spotlight and afford members of the Senate Judiciary Committee the ability to pursue important personal and party goals. I construct and evaluate a measure of rhetorical sentiment that considers the positive and negative behaviors of committee members during Supreme Court confirmation hearings between 1971 and 2020. While some observers have pointed to the evolving dynamics of confirmation hearings as being the result of key inflection points, I find that these events alone do not explain rhetorical behaviors. Instead, my results suggest that rhetorical behaviors have been predominately mediated by structures of party control and the balance of interbranch political power since at least the 1970s. I conclude by noting how these behaviors can further deteriorate the public’s perceptions that the Court remains insulated from the contentious political environment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析最高法院确认听证会的修辞
最高法院的确认听证会使这个经常与世隔绝的机构成为公众关注的焦点,并使参议院司法委员会的成员有能力追求重要的个人和政党目标。我构建并评估了一种修辞情绪的衡量标准,该标准考虑了委员会成员在1971年至2020年最高法院确认听证会期间的积极和消极行为。虽然一些观察家指出,确认听证会的演变动态是关键转折点的结果,但我发现,仅凭这些事件并不能解释修辞行为。相反,我的研究结果表明,至少自20世纪70年代以来,修辞行为主要由政党控制结构和跨部门政治权力平衡来调节。最后,我注意到这些行为会进一步恶化公众对法院与有争议的政治环境隔绝的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
CompLaw: A Coding Protocol and Database for the Comparative Study of Judicial Review Lacking Legislative Experience: The Impact of Changing Justice Backgrounds on Judicial Review African Americans’ Willingness to Extend Legitimacy to the Police: Connections to Identities and Experiences in the Post-George Floyd Era Are Judges on Per Curiam Courts Ideological? Evidence from the European Court of Justice Diffuse Support, Partisanship, and the Electoral Relevance of the Supreme Court
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1