Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Top Five Supreme Court Nomination Myths, Paul M. Collins Jr., Lori A. Ringhand
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
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
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
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 …