Law Commons^™

Interruptions At Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Have Been Rising Since The 1980s, Paul M. Collins Jr., Lori A. Ringhand

Popular Media

As scholars of the confirmation process, we aim to measure what is measurable, in the hope that data can inform our more subjective perceptions of politics. And one measurable feature of Kavanaugh’s testimony is the striking number of times he interrupted the senators to challenge their comments or force his own point. Here, the historical record can shed some light. This article reviews the history of interruptions during Supreme Court confirmation hearings from 1939 to 2010.

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collings Jr.

Scholarly Works

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …

Why Not Limit Neil Gorsuch — And All Supreme Court Justices — To 18-Year Terms?, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Popular Media

Legal scholars and political scientists increasingly question whether life tenure remains a good idea for Supreme Court justices. While scholars disagree about the exact numbers, our Supreme Court justices are serving longer and longer terms; presidents have incentives to choose younger and younger nominees; and the justices themselves appear to delay retirement in the hope of having an ideologically compatible president select their replacements. Moreover, the confirmation process has become increasingly contentious, culminating last year in Senate Republicans refusing to even grant a hearing to President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

As a result, many scholars propose a shift to …

The Top Five Supreme Court Nomination Myths, Paul M. Collins Jr., Lori A. Ringhand

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

What Two Legal Scholars Learned From Studying 70 Years Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul Collins

Popular Media

This article in The Conversation on March 21, 2016 and moves beyond the conventional wisdom espoused by Biden, Kagan and others, and presents a strong case for an alternative view of the hearings. Examining every statement made at confirmation hearings from 1939 to 2010, we conclude the hearings are important to the health of American democracy. Based on this, we’d like to see partisan politics pushed aside and Judge Merrick Garland to get a hearing.

Legal Scholarship Spotlight: The Evolution Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul Collins

Popular Media

This article appearing at the SCOTUSblog on March 25, 2016, discusses the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination of Supreme Court Justices.

The Institutionalization Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Paul M. Collins Jr., Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee’s role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee’s role …

Let's Talk: Judicial Decisions At Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Anna Batta, Paul M. Collins, Jr., Tom Miles, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

An investigation of Supreme Court Confirmation hearings reveals many queries posed to nominees reference specific court cases, especially recent decisions, and with questioning often divided along partisan lines. These findings indicate that the hearings are more substantive than is commonly assumed.