Judging Judicial Nominees

What determines public support for judicial nominees? We argue that support for nominees is based on policy congruence, and a nominee’s candor at her confirmation hearing can assist citizens as they try to align their support for a nominee with their own policy preferences. When nominees are evasive, other cues, such as past practice experience and interest group statements, can help citizens align their policy preferences with their support for a nominee. Drawing on two nationally representative survey experiments, we demonstrate that, when nominees demur in their answers to abortion questioning, citizens’ policy preferences play only a small role in shaping support for a nominee. But, when a nominee is forthcoming about their views on abortion, citizens’ policy views are a strong predictor of their desire to have the nominee confirmed. In a conjoint experiment, we demonstrate that—particularly in the absence of forthcoming statements from nominees—interest group support can help citizens to calibrate their policy views with their support for a nominee. The results emphasize the importance of confirmation hearings, even when nominees are evasive, for shaping public support.