Relying on theories of motivated reasoning, I hypothesize that individuals who favor a
nominee will prefer a legalistic confirmation hearing, while those who oppose a nominee will …

Supreme Court job approval is sensibly connected to its decisions, particularly salient ones.
We fill a gap in the literature by theorizing—via a presidential appointment mechanism …

Using a database on French labor courts between 1998 and 2012, we investigate case
selection and judicial decision-making. In France, judges are elected at the labor court level …

The United States Supreme Court is commonly thought to be an institution far removed from
American public opinion. Yet nearly two-thirds of modern Supreme Court decisions reflect …

Despite the importance of every nomination to the Supreme Court, a unified theory that
illuminates presidential selection of nominees across the modern political era remains …

Using traits conventionally believed to lead to elevation from the Circuit Courts to the
Supreme Court, this paper uses an item response theory model to estimate latent elevation …

Courts are often thought of as protectors of minority rights. What happens when the
composition of courts changes such that politically disadvantaged groups expect a less …

ABSTRACT A large body of scholarship has sought to explain the influences on the
Supreme Court's decision-making. However, much of this research focuses on the modern …

This paper explores how throughout American history, a divide in opinion has formed
between the class of political elites who occupy positions of power within our government …

The Supreme Court confirmation debates extend beyond the hearings. In fact, senators
regularly discuss nominations on the Senate floor. Moreover, they champion the importance …