Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

Are Supreme Court Nominations a Move-the-Median Game

Dados Bibliográficos

ID3328076
AutoresCharles M Cameron (0000-0003-0421-9870, Princeton University, autor correspondente), Jonathan P Kastellec (0000-0002-7338-248X, Princeton University, autor correspondente)
Ano2016
Volume110
Fascículo4
Páginas778-797
Data de publicação2016-11-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAmerican Political Science Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0003-0554 • E-ISSN: 1537-5943
EditoraCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0003055416000496
OpenAlexW3124641662
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas10
Referências citadas34

We conduct a theoretical and empirical re-evaluation of move-the-median (MTM) models of Supreme Court nominations-the one theory of appointment politics that connects presidential selection and senatorial confirmation decisions. We develop a theoretical framework that encompasses the major extant models, formalizing the tradeoff between concerns about the location of the new median justice versus concerns about the ideology of the nominee herself. We then use advances in measurement and scaling to place presidents, senators, justices, and nominees on the same scale, allowing us to test predictions that hold across all model variants. We find very little support for MTM theory. Senators have been much more accommodating of the president's nominees than MTM theory would suggest-many have been confirmed when the theory predicted they should have been rejected. These errors have been consequential: presidents have selected many nominees who are much more extreme than MTM theory would predict. These results raise serious questions about the adequacy of MTM theory for explaining confirmation politics and have important implications for assessing the ideological composition of the Court

Economic Justice · Extant taxon · Ideology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Presidential system · Selection (genetic algorithm · Sociology · Supreme court · Test (biology · Computer Science · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies

  • Presidents and the Status Quo

    Kenneth Lowande•Quarterly Journal of Political…•2021

  • Presidential Selection of Supreme Court Nominees

    Charles M Cameron, Jonathan P Kastellec et al.•Quarterly Journal of Political…•2019

  • Party Defection in Senate Confirmations of Executive Nominees

    Ryan Bookstein, Kristina C Miler•Congress & the Presidency•2026

  • Political Context, White House Centralization, and the Timing of Presidential Nominations to the Federal Courts

    Open Access•Justin Pottle, Jon C Rogowski et al.•Presidential Studies Quarterly•2022

  • Justice Bork, or, be careful which supreme court nominees you choose to fight

    Open Access•Mikel Norris•Social Science Quarterly•2024

  • Pivotal Politics as Normal Science

    Keith Krehbiel•The Journal of Politics•2018

  • Policy Making and Appointments under Electoral and Judicial Constraints

    Peter Bils, Gleason Judd et al.•The Journal of Politics•2024

  • Giving to the Extreme? Experimental Evidence on Donor Response to Candidate and District Characteristics

    Open Access•Mellissa Meisels, Joshua D Clinton et al.•British Journal of Political…•2024

  • The Power to Appoint

    David Cottrell, Charles R Shipan et al.•The Journal of Politics•2019

  • Case selection and Supreme Court pivots

    Open Access•Greg Sasso, Gleason Judd•Political Science Research and…•2022

  • The Judicial Common Space

    Lee Epstein, A D Martins et al.•The Journal of Law Economics and…•2007

  • Going Public When Opinion Is Contested

    Open Access•Charles M Cameron, Charles Cameron et al.•Presidential Studies Quarterly•2011

  • Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•James L Gibson, Gregory A Caldeira•American Journal of Political…•2009

  • Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo

    Open Access•Thomas Romer, Howard Rosenthal et al.•Public Choice•1978

  • Sunk Costs and Market Structure

    Roger Clarke, Jeanna Sutton et al.•The Economic Journal•1992

  • Democracy as a Latent Variable

    Open Access•Shawn Treier, Simon Jackman•American Journal of Political…•2008

  • Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999

    Open Access•A D Martins, Andrew D Martin et al.•Political Analysis•2002

  • Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal, Albert D Cover•American Political Science Review•1989

  • Bargaining Power in the Supreme Court

    Jeffrey R Lax, Kelly Rader•The Journal of Politics•2015

  • Advising and Consenting in the 60-Vote Senate

    David W Rohde, Kenneth A Shepsle•The Journal of Politics•2007

  • The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees

    Lee Epstein, René Lindstädt et al.•The Journal of Politics•2006

  • Public Opinion and Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees

    Jonathan P Kastellec, Jeffrey R Lax et al.•The Journal of Politics•2010

  • Polarizing the Electoral Connection

    Jonathan P Kastellec, Jeffrey R Lax et al.•The Journal of Politics•2015

  • Voting for Justices

    Charles M Cameron, Jonathan P Kastellec et al.•The Journal of Politics•2013

  • Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process

    Timothy R Johnson, Jason M Roberts•The Journal of Politics•2004

  • Roll Calls, Party Labels, and Elections

    Open Access•Jane Mcintosh Snyder, James M Snyder et al.•Political Analysis•2003

  • Senator Opposition to Supreme Court Nominations

    Open Access•Lawrence J Zigerell•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2010

  • Policy dynamics and electoral uncertainty in the appointments process

    Open Access•Jinhee Jo, David Primo et al.•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2017

  • Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency

    Open Access•Michael A Bailey•American Journal of Political…•2007

  • Equilibrium Behavior in Crisis Bargaining Games

    Jeffrey S Banks•American Journal of Political…•1990

  • The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations

    Bryon J Moraski, Bryon Moraski et al.•American Journal of Political…•1999

  • Congress, Lawmaking, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1971–2000

    Open Access•Joshua D Clinton•American Journal of Political…•2012

  • Supreme Court Appointments as a Move‐the‐Median Game

    Open Access•Keith Krehbiel, Kieth Krehbiel•American Journal of Political…•2007

  • Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions

    Open Access•Cliff Carrubba, Barry Friedman et al.•American Journal of Political…•2012

  • Lobbying for Justice

    Gregory A Caldeira, John Wright et al.•American Journal of Political…•1998

  • Explaining the Vote

    David Austen-Smith, David Austen‐smith•American Journal of Political…•1992

  • A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting

    Jeffrey A Segal, Charles M Cameron et al.•American Journal of Political…•1992

  • Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees

    Open Access•Charles M Cameron, Albert D Cover et al.•American Political Science Review•1990

  • Courting Constituents? An Analysis of the Senate Confirmation Vote on Justice Clarence Thomas

    Open Access•L Marvin Overby, Beth M Henschen et al.•American Political Science Review•1992

  • The Supreme Court's Many Median Justices

    Open Access•Benjamin E Lauderdale, Tom S Clark•American Political Science Review•2012

Obras citantes distintas10
Citações por ano1,25
Intervalo de citações2018 - 2026 (9)
Velocidade de citaçãocurrent
Altamente citadoNão
Tipos de citaçãoNeutras: 10
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae