Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:51:54.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

L. Marvin Overby ,
Beth M. Henschen ,
Michael H. Walsh  and
Julie Strauss
L. Marvin Overby
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Beth M. Henschen
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Michael H. Walsh
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Julie Strauss
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The increasing public attention paid to Supreme Court nominations has elevated the salience of Senate confirmation battles, raising interesting questions about the impact of constituency preferences on senators' voting behavior. In this article, we explore this relationship using a logistical regression model to examine the impacts of African-American constituency size and the proximity of reelection on the roll call behavior of senators on the Clarence Thomas confirmation vote. Our analyses indicate that these factors were both statistically and substantively significant in the Thomas case. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of such findings.

Type
Research Notes
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 997 - 1003
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, Henry J. 1985. Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce A. 1988. “Transformative Appointments.” Harvard Law Review 101:1164–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Robert A., and Anthony, William A.. 1974. “The ABM Issue in the Senate, 1968–1970: The Importance of Ideology.” American Political Science Review 68:1198–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biskupic, Joan. 1991a. “Deflecting Tough Questions, Thomas Stumps Senators.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 49:2619–23.Google Scholar
Biskupic, Joan. 1991b. “Democrats To Push Thomas on Abortion, Other Views.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 49:1826–1828.Google Scholar
Biskupic, Joan. 1991c. “How the Thomas Nomination Differs from the Bork Fight.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 49:2169–70.Google Scholar
Biskupic, Joan. 1991d. “Thomas Drama Engulfs Nation; Anguished Senate Faces Vote.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 49:2948–57.Google Scholar
Biskupic, Joan. 1991e. “Thomas Hearings Illustrate Politics of the Process.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 49:2688–92.Google Scholar
“Bush Announces the Nomination of Thomas to Supreme Court.” 1991. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 49:1851–54.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1988–1989. “Commentary on Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices: The Roles of Organized and Unorganized Interests.” Kentucky Law Journal 77:531–38.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Cover, Albert D., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1990. “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model.” American Political Science Review 84:525–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, William J. 1978. “The Geographic Factor in Appointments to the United States Supreme Court: 1789–1976.” Western Political Quarterly 31:226–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, George C. III. 1989. At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Felice, John D., and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 1988–1989. “The Changing Importance of Ideology, Party, and Region in Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees, 1953–1988.” Kentucky Law Journal 77:509–30.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr., 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr., 1982. The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fish, Peter G. 1988–1989. “Perspectives on the Selection of Federal Judges: Spite Nominations to the United States Supreme Court: Herbert C. Hoover, Owen J. Roberts, and the Politics of Presidential Vengeance in Retrospect.” Kentucky Law Journal 77:545–76.Google Scholar
Grossman, Joel B., and Wasby, Stephen L.. 1972. “The Senate and Supreme Court Nominations: Some Reflections.” Duke Law Journal 1972:557–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. 1989. “Constitutional Decision Making: The Obscenity Decisions of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Halper, Thomas. 1972. “Senate Rejection of Supreme Court Nominees.” Drake Law Review 22:102–13.Google Scholar
Hulbary, William E., and Walker, Thomas G.. 1980. “The Supreme Court Selection Process: Presidential Motivations and Judicial Performance.” Western Political Quarterly 33: 185–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, James M. 1991. “Testing the Parochial Hypothesis: Congress and the Strategic Defense Initiative.” Journal of Politics 53:860–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, Donald E. 1986. “The Supreme Court Appointment Process: In Search of Constitutional Roles and Responsibilities.” Southern California Law Review 59:551–79.Google Scholar
McCormick, James, and Black, Michael. 1983. “Ideology and Senate Voting on the Panama Canal Treaty.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massaro, John. 1990. Supremely Political: The Role of Ideology and Presidential Management in Unsuccessful Supreme Court Nominations. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, W. John. 1991. “Previewing the Thomas Hearings.” National Journal 23:2154.Google Scholar
Moyer, Wayne. 1973. “House Voting on Defense: An Ideological Explanation.” In Military Force and American Society, ed. Russett, Bruce and Stepan, Alfred. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Nagel, Robert F. 1990. “Advice, Consent, and Influence.” Northwestern University Law Review 84:858–75.Google Scholar
Overby, L. Marvin. 1991. “Assessing Constituency Influence: Congressional Voting on the Nuclear Freeze, 1982–1983.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Jan. 1983. “Senate Confirmation of Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Review of Social Economy 41:152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Barbara A. 1991. A “Representative” Supreme Court? The Impact of Race, Religion, and Gender on Appointments. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1987. “Realignment: New Party Coalitions and the Nationalization of the South.” Journal of Politics 49:347–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rader, Randall R. 1988–1989. “The Independence of the Judiciary: A Critical Aspect of the Confirmation Process.” Kentucky Law Journal 77:767–820.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Schmidhauser, John R. 1979. Judges and Justices: The Federal Appellate Judiciary. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Schmidhauser, John R., and Berg, Larry L.. 1972. The Supreme Court and Congress: Conflict and Interaction, 1945–1968. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1987. “Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices: Partisan and Institutional Politics.” Journal of Politics 49:998–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Cameron, Charles M., and Cover, Albert D.. 1992. “A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science 36:96–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Cover, Albert D., and Cameron, Charles M.. 1988–1989. “Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices: The Role of Ideology in Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.” Kentucky Law Journal 77:485–507.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1986. “If a Supreme Court Vacancy Occurs, Will the Senate Confirm a Reagan Nominee?” Judicature 69:186–90.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1979. “The Relevance of Policy Values for the Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees.” Law & Society Review 13:927–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulfridge, Wayne. 1980. “Ideology as a Factor in Senate Consideration of Supreme Court Nominations.” Journal of Politics 42:560–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Martin. 1985. “Election Proximity and Senatorial Roll Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29:96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.